A RE-EXAMINATION

OF THE WARREN

COMMISSION FINDINGS:

A MINORITY REPORT

Participants:

JACOB COHEN, historian, author of the

article "The Missing Documents"

PENN JONES, editor, the Midlothian Mirror,

and author of "Forgive My Grief"

MARK LANE, attorney, and author of

"Rush to Judgment'!

LEO SAUVAGE, correspondent for Le Figaro,

and author of "The Oswald Affair"

HAROLD WEISBERG, author of "Whitewash:

The Report on the Warren Report"

Moderator:

JIM BISHOP, syndicated columnist, and author of the forthcoming book "The Day Kennedy Was Shot"

Credits:

Produced by Mel Baily Directed by Arthur Forrest Associate to the Producer: Paul Noble

Recorded August 30, 1966

Telecast November 12, 1966, 9:00 P.M., h'NEW-TV, New York

A Public Affairs Production of WNEW-TV, Metropolitan Broadcasting Televison, A Division of Metromedia, Inc.

(c) Metromedia, Inc., 1966 SCHOENBRUN: I'm David Schoenbrun.

History sometimes does repeat itself. A century ago a great American

president was assassinated. There was no mystery about the assassin.

John Wilkes Booth stood upon the stage and fired at Abraham Lincoln in the

full, horrified view of hundreds of spectators. Yet, controversy over

the assassination, whether it was or was not a plot rather than the act

of a single madman, broke out at once and has never ceased right up to our

day.

Some three years ago another great American President was shot down. This

time the assassin was not caught in the act, but Lee Oswald was arrested

quickly and charged with the murder. Inevitably, as in the case of Lincoln,

suspicion swiftly grew that there was a plot. A Presidential Commission

was established to investigate all the facts, a distinguished Commission

of eminent citizens and authorities, headed by the Chief Justice of the

Supreme Court, to dispel any further doubts that the truth would be found.

And yet, as in the case of John Wilkes Booth controversy still rages over

whether or not Lee Oswald was lone madman. Several books have appeared and

several of the country's leading periodicals have seriously questioned the

findings of the Warren Commission report -- and even its conclusions.

Consistent with our self-imposed obligation to inform the public, we believe

that the controversy over the Warren Report should be aired for the many

thousands of citizens who have not studied the Commission's report or

the charges of those critics who dissent from its conclusions. Members of

the Commission and staff were invited to take part in the discussions you

are about to see. They did not accept that first invitation. When producti

of this program was completed and plans made to televise it, the Commission

was informed and proffered a second invitation to participate in a follow-up

program. We have now received several acceptances, and there will be a

subsequent program presenting the opinions of those who support the findings

of the Warren Report.

But first this discussion by its critics, moderated by Jim Bishop. Ladies

and gentlemen, Mr. Bishop. BISHOP: This ladies and gentlemen is an array of authors. As you

know, an author is a person with a knowledge of words who

enjoys inflicting his opinions on others. One of the

blessings of the writer is that he is a trained professional

observer. This particular group has something in common.

Each has read and digested the ten million four hundred

thousand words of the Warren Commission Report. This is

the one which inquired into the assassination of President

John F. Kennedy at Dallas on November 22, 1963. The Report

found that a young malcontent, Lee Harvey Oswald, alone

and with no conspirators, shot and killed the President.

The authois have allegated to themselves the right to inquire

into the accuracy of the Warren Commission Report. You

might expect that a group of scribblers presented with the

same assortment of facts would arrive at the same conclusion.

This is not so. All of the men around me have written tracts

disagreeing in part with the Warren Commission Report.

Some see it as a skein of contradictions and lies. Others

point at testimony which is not included in the report.

Some believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot the President.

I'm the only writer present who has not published his findings.

It will be completed in two years and will be called

"The Day Kennedy Was Shot". I am also the only writer here

who agrees with the Warren Commission Report as it stands.

I think that Oswald shot the President as casually as a

boy in an empty lot might pick off a tin can. This makes me a minority of one.

(Johnson quote over credits) 2.

BISHOP: I would like to introduce the members of the panel who sit

here with me this evening. On my extreme left is Mr. Penn Jones,

Editor of the Midlothian Mirror in Texas, and the author of

"FORGIVE MY GRIEF". Harold Weisberg, author of "WHITEWASH".

Mark Lane, attorney and author of "RUSH TO JUDGMENT".

Jacob Cohen, author of "THE'MISSING DOCUMENTS", and he is

now writing a book defending the Warren Commission Report.. Now I think we should open with a little free and easy

conversation. Penn Jones, give us your feelings.

PENN JONES: Jim, I have been guilty of saying that the only way you can

believe the Warren Report is to not read it, and that's

really what America did. I'm happy to be on this panel, where

now we have two who are willing to defend the report. I

think it's awfully important that we as newsmen and the

news media of this nation impress upon the American public

the importance to read, not only the report,but the test-

imony regardless of how much time it takes.

BISHOP: And it certainly takes a lot of time, I can tell you. Mr.

Sauvage.

SAUVAGE: I have summed up in the last chapter of my book the eight

quotes given by the Commission and I'm glad, glad that they

are discussed now here for the first time in public in

television. So each point will come up and will be discussed

by us, but what I would like to add is that in this century

and in this country, nobody should have the right to ask us

to take anything on faith. We are entitled to discuss,

and we are entitled to ask for proof. That, I believe is the

main point. 3.

BISHOP: That's a good one too. Mr. Weisberg?

WEISBERG: My book WHITEWASH, the report on the Warren Report is restricted

entirely to the Commission's official information and its

report to which it is extensively referenced so you can keep

me honest. It's the conclusion that the expected job has

not been done and must be entirely in public, and preferably

by Congress. In order to reach this conclusion I had to,

in effect, destroy all the major conclusions of the report.

This I did, I believe, entirely with the Commission's own

evidence by showing how the Commission ignored witnesses and

evidences, manufactured evidence, destroyed evidence, I

mean lit erally destroyed.

BISHOP: These are very grave charges. Hr. Lane.

LANE: This is the Warren Commission Report when it was handed to

President Johnson in September of 1964. He held it on

nationwide television and said, "It's very heavy", which

indeed may go down in hisotry as the finest short analysis of

the report. For when the 26 volumes on which this report was

allegedly based were released, it became clear that not a

single basic conclusion of the Warren Commission could be

substantiated by their actual findings. The Commission's

conclusion that Oswald was the assassin is not compelling and

cannot be reached upon what the Commission discovered. Its

conclusion that one man alone killed President Kennedy is

ludicrous and is rebutted by the known facts. Of course,

there is more evidence. There is evidence in the National

Archives which is classified and by order of Lyndon Johnson

may not be seen until September of the year 2,039. I 4.

think this is the imposition of consensus from above,the

very antithesis of democracy. I think that if there is anything

that we can all agree this evening, any one single fact is

that the Archives should be opened up and that the material

should be made available to the American people.

BISHOP: Mr. Cohen.

COHEN: Well, I'mgoing/Vant to make a comment about, just about

everything Mr. Lane has said in the course of the evening,

but I do want to make clear, that by and large I am a

defender of the Commission, and what I defend, rather what

I am convinced by, is that there is one and only one assassin.

His name is Lee Harvey Oswald, and I might add that there

was only one Lee Harvey Oswald. I do not defend the Commission

against the charge that in some of its joints, it is rusty,

and that some of the report is carelessly argued. In fact,

I shall be pointing out that there are documents which

the Commission never saw which are pivotal in its arguments

and, if they were made public now, could effectively verify

or silence some of the theories of some of my colleagues

here. Also, let me say one other thing. I am the only

defender of the Commission on this panel of five. The name

of this program is "A Minority Report". The concept of the

program is precisely that, it has mounted the minority report

against the Warren report. Now, I don't want my ability

to handle these five zealous gentlemen to be mistaken for

whatever authority there is in the Warren report. It stands

by itself, and I would also like to urge this station to

follow this program with what I suppose must be called,

a majority report, although I'm not sure that the majority S.

holds to the Warren Commission's findings anymore, but

that they should really make a great effort to bring together

members of the staff, and members of the Commission and to

answer charges which are becoming too grave and too serious

now to avoid. BISHOP: To set the stage for this gigantic tragedy, I think we should

start by discussing the events leading up to the assassination,

and for this I call on fir. Weisberg. WEISBERG: In the Fall of 1963, despite the misgivings of some of his

advisors and for political reasons, President Kennedy

decided upon a trip to Texas. Despite what happened to Adlai

Stevenson and to Lyndon Johnson himself, he went there. The

stop before Dallas was at Ft. Worth, and it rained at Ft.

Worth. Some of the Secret Service men violated regulations

by staying out too late. The Government found that they should

not be punished because of the unusual stigma that should be

placed upon them, and speaking for myself, I agree with

that. JONES: And, by the way, I would like to say that I was standing by

the side of Adlai Stevenson when he was hit and spat upon

in Dallas that night. In addition to that, then we have

the ads that appeared in the Dallas News that morning. If

we could see slide #22, please. That's the famous ad that

appeared in the Dallas News on that day, paid for by an

unemployed man who had reached Dallas about a week before. BISHOP: Is that the "wanted for treason?' PENN JONES: No, I'd like to show #50. That's the "wanted for treason".

The Dallas News ad would welcome Mr. Kennedy, and the other one

is "wanted for treason", that's #50 if we could see it please. 6.

BISHOP: And you think this climate was dangerous for the President?

PENN JONES: Yes, in addition to all of this, now there was a man at the

luncheon site who said he was glad Kennedy was killed. He

got what he deserved. And, in addition to that, and in direct

contradiction to what the Superintendent of Schools in Dallas

said, there were hundreds gf kids, not thirteen, thbre weee

hundreds of kids all over Dallas that shouted for joy that

day. I don't blame the kids, they got it from their parents,

but it did happen.

COHEN: I'd like to point out that climates don't kill people,

gunmen kill people, and it may very well be that there was

a climate of hate in Dallas, and it could also be that in the

midst of this climate of hate....I suppose you will think it

kind of a right-wing climate of hate....that a half-cocked

and kind of confused leftist, like Oswald, could have gone

against the grain of the climate and shot. Except in cases

of Asthma, I don't know when climates kill people.

BISHOP: Well climates create gunmen, and gunmen kill people..

COHEN: Invariably?

BISHOP: Not invariably, I think we're quibbling with words now, but

I think it is pretty much agreed that Dallas, if you were to

pick a spot, would be a little bit more prone to danger for

a President of liberal views and a President who certainly

espoused civil rights, but Dallas would be a little bit more

dangerous than let us say Boston would.

WEISBERG: I think it would be helpful to an understanding if we could

look at slide #48 which is a photograph of the front page of

the Dallas Morning paper showing the projected route as it

appeared in the paper that morning. The Commission saying 7.

Oswald was the assassin, of course, had to say that he

planned his assassination. Contradictory accounts had appeared

in the Dallas papers for the period immediately preceeding.

The report, in discussftthem, ignores this map, which was

two columns wide on the front page and it wrenched really

out of context a few small words of type in which the impression

was given that Oswald knew thereby that the motorcade would

go slowly underneath the sixth floor window so that he would

have a good shot while it was going slowly.

BISHOP: Well excuse me, but didn't all of the employees say there

that before lunch time that they were going out to see the

President pass by....didn't most of them know it?

WEISBERG: I'm talking now of preparing for his assassination. The

Commission said that Oswald could prepare in advance because

he knew the route that the motorcade was likely

BISHOP: Well, I saw newspapers of the 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st,

and I believe that there were accounts; one was without a

map - no chart - it just said he is expected to proceed from

Love field down this street, through that stree, and it was

pretty valid, it was pretty much the way...the way it eventually

turned out. Yes, Hr. Sauvage.

SAUVAGE: May I remind you of something that seems to me very relevant

to this part of the discussion. That there is in the Warren

Report a small paragraph, a very fascinating small paragraph,

concerning the deposition by James Jarman, Jr., one of the

employees there. And, according to this statement which the

Warren Commission does not put in doubt, Jarman reports that

a short time before the passage of the motorcade Oswald asked

him, "why are those people standing around?" And he explained 8.

to him that because the motorcade is passing by. Oswald

said, "Oh, yes" and that was all. So we have a very interesting

moment. Did Oswald play the part in order to secure an

alibi? And then, why didn't he secure an alibi in other

terms. For instance, in hiding his photographs and so on

and burning some documents.• Or is it true that he didn't

know at all that the motorcade was passing by. This statement

in the Warren Report is still open to discussion.

BISHOP: Anyone else with something on the climate of the times?

Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen we'll be back in a moment.

BISHOP: The next finding to be discussed is that Lee Harvey Oswald

owned and possessed the rifle to kill President Kennedy and

wound Govenor Connally, and for this I would like to open

with Harold Weisberg.

WEISBERG: The sole proof of connection between Oswald and this rifle to

the exclusion of all other rifles is a purchase order and a

money order by mail that was delivered to a Post Office box

in Dallas. On this basis we presume it reached Oswald. From

that time on, this rifle was never shown to be in the possession

of Oswald. The Commission leans heavily on one of the many

variations of Marina's testimony and then naturally the one

it prefers in the report. But, actually in her testimony what

Marina really said led the Chairman to say, "that's all right

Mrs. Oswald, my wife wouldn't know the difference between

a rifle and a shotgun either." The first time Marina mentioned

a rifle, she didn't know it had a telescopic sight, she

told the Government agents that until she saw the rifle on

television, she didn't know rifles came with what she called

telescopes. 9.

BISHOP: Let me cut in.... Didn't Narina make a picture of her

husband with the rifle....holding, the rifle?

WEISBERG: This rifle to the exclusion of all others.

BISHOP: You mean he might have owned two?

WEISBERG: That rifle was not identified as the rifle that killed the

President. Now you raised an interesting point about

that rifle, because the rifle that Marina is supposed to

have taken a picture of, as she said she did, through a camera

that was belatedly produced and was not in Oswald's property

when it was seized by the police. That picture appeared in

a number of contradictory forms as it was altered to suit the

story that was then prevalent....

BISHOP: No, it was altered by art editors of magazines, not by the

Warren Commission.

WEISBERG: That's correct that is absolutely

LANE: comment on this since I did raise the question with

the Commission. For approximately a year from the time of

the assassination until approximately one year later in

November, I had said after submitting this photograph

to photography experts to advise me that there were some

strange disparities in it; that the shadow from Oswald's nose

can clearly be seen falling directly down in the middle of his

mouth indicating that the sun was somewhere over his head

when the picture was taken, whereas, the shadow from his body

seems to fall to his right and to the rear indicating that

the sun was in fact in front of him and to his left when the

picture of his body was taken unless Oswald's head was

superimposed on the picture. Perhaps it was taken in a

society which enjoyed a dual solar system. 10.

BISHOP: Wasn't that his defense too?

LANE: Well we did not know that

BISHOP: That the photograph was a composite photograph?

LANE: Yes, we did not know, although the photographic experts around

the world could raise this question, we did not know until

November 1964, a year later, when the Commission published

the 26 vols. that the FBI agents, the Secret Service agents

and the Dallas police officers who had questioned Oswald,

and made no record of the statements he was making during

the two days.

COHEN: Thye made no record?

LANE: They made no stenographic record and there was no tape

recorded.

COHEN: There was a written record though wasn't there?

LANE: Some of them took notes, but even on these basic questions

there was a difference of opinion among the various police

agencies.

COHEN: May I ask you a question Mark?

LANE: In one moment, if I might, Mr. Cohen. But, they all do agree

that Oswald did say when shown that picture on November 23rd

that his head had been superimposed on. When this question was

raised and the question of the doctoring of the photograph

had been raised when I testified before the Commission, the

Commission called upon Lyndal Shaneyfelt, an FBI photography

expert and called upon him to indicate whether or not the

picture had been altered and doctored and he said that it had

been altered and doctored in a number of respects. But he did not, of course, say that the head had been superimposed.

And then the Commission published as an exhibit this photo. 11. I wonder if we might see slide seven please, and this was

supposed to be some kind of proof. Of course, the disparity

of the shadows could hardly be determined in this picture since

the FBI removed the head of the agent who posed on the roof

of the FBI building and therefore although the shadow of

the body does move to the rear and to the right. We really

do not know where the shadow on the nose would have fallen.

COHEN: But, let me ask you a few questions. I think it's important

that we understand that this }photograph was shown to Oswald

on November 22, 1963, in his interrogation, isn't that right?

LANE: No, it is incorrect. It was November 23rd.

WEISBERG: No, I'm sorry this photograph was not shown to Oswald. I

would like to lay a background for this photograph. There

were two similar, but not identical photographs. They were

seen COHEN: I'm sorry, I was asking a question

WEISBERG: But, don't talk about this photograph because this is not the

one, talk about a similar one

COHEN: A photograph with Oswald holding a gun

LANE: Yes

COHEN: was shown to Oswald on either November 22nd or 23rd. It was my understanding that it was the 22nd.

WEISBERG: It was late in the afternoon about 6 o'clock on the 22nd.

COHEN: which means that if this is a fabricated photograph, if as Oswald claims, his head has been placed into another body

which looks suspiciously like his, in frame; that this forgery

took place either on the day of the assassination or well before, isn't that right, and was in the hands of the Dallas

police by November 23rd. 12.

LANE: According to the police, Oswald said you have superimposed

a picture of me which you took yesterday on the 22nd.

WEISBERC: Yes, this came up a number of times, not just once, Jerry. I'd

like to lay the background which I think would help with this.

The detectives

COHEN: Well, I just want to make cicar what we are saying now, that

the Dallas police has begun to frame Oswald as of November 22nd.

LANE: We know this in addition to the picture....

COHEN: This is the allegation.

WEISBERC: You are saying it.

LANE: We know that Marina Oswald's

COHEN: Well, this is implicit in the notion of a picture being forged

on November 22nd.

LANE: We know that Marina said

BISHOP: Let Mark continue

LANE: that when she told the Commission that she took the

picture, she said two things about it. That the picture prior

to the time that she testified that she took it. Two things

which are relevant. #1. She said that she never saw Oswald

with a pistol at any time in his life....in possession of a

pistol or near a pistol Here a pistol is clearly shown

on the picture. Secondly, which Mr. Weisberg said earlier,

she said she never saw a telescope or a telescopic sight until

after she saw that on television. Here is a picture of a rifle which shows a telescopic sight

BISHOP: Well, would she know a telescopic sight?

LANE: A rather large bulky appendix 13.

BISHOP: And you think that if she was taking a snapshot of her husband

that she could identify the parts of the rifle?

LANE: Well since the Commission had relied upon Marina's statement

that this was in fact the weapon which she had seen before

one would think that she could have at least noticed that

BISHOP: That something was superimposed up on it.

COHEN: Since you think that the Commission coached Marina and all of

you have made that allegation

LANE: I've not said that, I merely said that Marina Oswald was

taken to the Dallas police station on November 22nd and shown

the alleged assassination weapon, she said she could not

identify that as the rifle which her husband never owned.

COHEN: Well, I mean in general..

LANE: And that some months later when she testified in February of

the following year that the Chief Justice after the first day

of her testimony was asked by reporters if Marina had yet

identified the weapon, the assassination weapon as belonging

to her husband, and he said, "We haven't shown it to her yet,

we are going to show it to her tomorrow and we're pretty sure

she'll be able to identify it". Of course, she had been

in police custody all of that period of time and sure

enough she did identify it.

BISHOP: Just a moment, let us hear from Mr. Sauvage.

SAUVAGE: I would simply say that it would be time to come back to the

form that the Warren Report gives to that question. The

first proof the Warren Commission is Lee Harvey Oswald owned

and possessed a rifle used to kill President Kennedy and wound

Govenor Connally. So, I wouldn't even enter the discussion

whether the photographs was correct or incorrect. To me, it 14.

it really doesn't matter. I admit that he owned, not

possessed, owned....a gun A rifle, so it is not a

problem whatever. What I would like to discuss and have the

Commission prove was that this gun, this rifle was used to kill

President Kennedy

COHEN: May I comment on that? Please?

BISHOP: OK.

COHEN: Now, we know that in February of 1963 that Oswald....well,

I want to be precise now, that Kleins received an order for

a gun, that this order requested that the gun whose serial

number was recorded at Kleins, be sent to a Post Office box

in Dallas, and it gave the Post Office box number, the

name of the person to which it was to be sent was a Mr. Hidell.

WEISBERG: Not Hidell I'm sorry, go ahead....

COHEN: H-I-D7E-L-L however, you pronounce it.

WEISBERG: Go ahead...go ahead

COHEN: The Post Office box number was the Post Office box of Lee

Harvey Oswald

(overtalk)

COHEN: That gun...that serial number was found on the 6th floor of

the book depository on the day of the assassination. That

gun, which was found on the sixth floor of the book depository

was the gun that fired at least two of the bullets, the only

two gullets which were recovered.

SAUVAGE: Now we come to the point of importance.

WEISBERG: Now, excuse me, I would like to finish what I didn't get

a chance to before....at no point, Jerry, have you placed or

did the Commission place this rifle in the possession of 15.

Oswald from the time it reached that Post Office box. Now,

I want to go back to the picture because we can't pass this

question of the picture too fast. Detectives Stovall and

Rose conducted a highly dubious search outside the jurisdiction

of the Dallas police in the Payne home. Their inventory shows

two negatives of this picture and two prints. They testified

explicitly on it. One disappeared. It has never been accounted

for. The Commission was told that only one was found.

COHEN: You mean they found this picture in the home too?

WEISBERG: Excuse me, let me get finished COHEN: I just want to get the point sir.

WEISBERG: Both the negative and the picture were found in the garage.

They are in the statements and in the inventory of Stovall

and Rose. Two pictures, similar this is why I interrupt. COHEN: So, if the picture was forged it was also planted in the

garage as well.

WEISBERG: Please speak for yourself. Don't put words into my mouth. I

am telling you, I am telling you that the police seized two

negatives, not one, two similar picture - two negatives,

two pictures.

LANE: Two different pictures, two different poses.

WEISBERG: Similar, but different, exactly!

COHEN: Of Oswald holding a gun.... WEISBERG: Yes.

LANE: And Marina of course testified that she only snapped the

camera once.

WEISBERG: But, they have two pictures and one negative, but the inventory

shows two negatives. 16. BISHOP: And if the Commission's was spurious. They produced it you

say, in the same afternoon you say at 6:00, right? WEISBERG: Not the spurious one. They produced in a time that's

remarkably fast a series of things for the police to interrogate

Oswald about. COHEN: Who is they now? The Dallas Police? WEISBERG: The police. Now this negative in the inventory in the

statements of the police officers who took it, has yet to be

produced, but in telling the members of the Commission as dis-

tinguished from the staff, the Commission members were told

that there was only one negative. Lyndal Shaneyfelt made

a negative from the print. This is his testimony before the

Commission, and even then the Commission was never told, the

members of the Commission were never told,that a negative

had disappeared between the time of the search of dubious

legality outside the jurisdiction of the police in a different

jurisdiction. LANE: I wonder if we might do this. I think Mr. Cohen put his

finger on it when he said the 6.5 caliber Italian carbine

which was owned by Oswald and which was in fact the assassination

weapon. I think Mr. Sauvage said that that really is the

question and I think that it really is. Whether or not

Oswald owned a rifle is really less relevant than whether a

weapon just like this was in fact found on the sixth floor of

the book depository building. The fact is that when the

weapon was found it was identified for the first day as a

German Mauser 7.65 BISHOP: This can happen to anybody, who took a casual look 17.

LANE: Well, let's just see if that's true. Congressman Ford of course,

one of the distinguished members of the Commission expressed

a similar view in his book. He said that the reason that

people all over the world heard that it was a German Mauser

for the first day can be explained by the fact that the

reporter was facing an immediate deadline and therefore

asked a police officer standing by, what kind of a rifle do

you think it might have been, and the officer carelessly

said, "well, it might have been a German Mauser," and that's

a very persuasive answer. The only problem with it is it

is totally untrue.

The officer who found the weapon on the 6th floor of the book

depository building was Seymour Weitzman. He filed an

affidavit, not on the spot, but the following day, in which

he swore that the weapon he found was a German Mauser 7.65

millimeters. It is interesting to note that when he testified

before the Commission Mr. Weitzman was not shown the Italian

carbine to be asked whether or not that was the weapon he

found. Two other policemen at the scene also said it was a

German Mauser, including Capt. Fritz, who not only looked

at it, but picked up up and according to his testimony,

and the testimony of others, rejected one live round after

inspecting the weapon. In addition to that, Deputy Sheriff

Boone said that he too thought it was a German Mauser 7.65mm.

The following day when the FBI said that their records

revealed that Oswald had in fact purchased an Italian carbine

caliber 6.5, a rifle did emerge at the Dallas police station

and it was an Italian carbine caliber 6.5, and the Dallas

authorities explained that this was in fact the weapon that 18.

had been discovered the day before and incorrectly identified.

When I testified before the Commission, I asked if I might

examine the alleged assassination weapon and they were kind

enough to show it to me the second time I testified, and

I'm not a rifle expert, I fired army weapons in World War II,

but I don't know anything about other weapons. But even with

my lack of experience, I was able to look at the weapon and

know that it was not a German tlauser caliber 7.65 because I

read it and it said very clearly "made - Italy, caliber 6.5.

Now, I wonder how a Dallas police officer could file an

affidavit 24 hours after seeing the weapon and so poorly

identify it.

BISHOP: Well, I found after reading the complete Warren Commission

Report that there were multitudinous errors of that sort,

and I think that the important factor here is not the lack

of proper identification, but the fact that - is this the rifle,

the rifle that was found between the cartons on the sixth

floor, is that the rifle that was ordered from Kleins by

A. Hidell7 And if it is, then we can assume, I think, that

it was Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.

LANE: Well then what do we do with all the statements of all the

three officers who said it was a German lauser 7.65 caliber

is the weapon which they found. The Commission gave the

impression that Mr. Weitzman is not very bright and doesn't

know very much about rifles, but when one puts down the report

for a moment and again picks up the evidence; Weitzman's own

testimony, sees that Weitzman said that he owned a sports

shop at which he sold rifles and that he was very familiar 19.

with rifles. And I tell you that when I visited Officer

Weitzman who is not in Houston, not long ago he has rifles

in his house, and he walked in, in fact, that day with a big

pistol on his hip. So he knows all about rifles, and

the difference between a German Hauser which is the most

prized of all the Bolt Actions, and this piece of junk,

an Italian carbine, is a difference which is very well recognized

by all riflemen.

WEISBERG: Excuse me, Mark said that I might come back after he finished

and I started to say something and I'll be brief. In

addition to Weitzman having a familiarity of rifles because

of his sporting good operation and his own interest, Weitzman

was an engineer, a graduate engineer. Now, I am not

splitting hairs, Mark, when I say that Weitzman did not

appear before the Commission. I think it is an important

distinction to make.

LANE: The Counsel for the Commission.

WEISBERG: Weitzman was not called before the Commission. Boone was called, Weitzman was not.

(overtalk)

BISHOP: That's what I'm trying to get at and I wish you would explain

to me, because just a moment...I think that maybe I'm

becoming dense. What does it matter what the policemen testified

or how they misinterpreted the rifle, if in fact it is

provable by handwriting experts that this man wrote this

sheet to Kleins and ordered a rifle of that particular caliber?

And then that particular rifle and that particular serial

number is found after the assassination on the zixth floor. 20.

LANE: But it wasn't found on the sixth floor if the three officers

who found the weapon said that what they found there was a

German Mauser 7.65 caliber. How can we be sure that what they

really found there was this one, when it's so different from

a German

BISHOP: How did they produce this oche?

COHEN: How did the Dallas police produce this one?

BISHOP: Yes.

LANE: If we knew the answer to that we might know much more

about it.

BISHOP: I think unless we know some of the answers then we shouldn't

be asking the questions.

(overtalk)

LANE: No, no, we don't have to know the answers to ask the questions.

(overtalk)

WEISBERG: Just one word. It is not just a question of ownership which

goes:only to the day it reached the Post Office box and

possessed, meaning as of the time it was allegedly used in

the assassination, and possessed. And the whole story addresses

itself very much to "and possessed" in only one aspect of

"and possessed". Go ahead Jerry. COHEN: I want eo add a fact and review some others. This rifle,

the Italian, not the German rifle, was in Washington in the

FBI laboratory on November 23rd, one day after the assassination.

This rifle which was in the FBI lab was by ballistics tests,

that day, the day after the assassination, showed that the

two bullets which were recovered were fired from that rifle.

Now, as I understand it what you're saying is that someone,

well I don't know if you're saying they were trying to frame 21.

Oswald or not, that someone dropped a German Nauser around

there for what?

WEISBERG: I will answer that question. The rifle did reach the FBI

lab, the thing you found it convenient to omit was that it

reached there without any sight on it, that the sight was in

inoperative condition, that the sight could never be made to

operate

BISHOP: Not inoperative...in error

WEISBERG: No sir, inoperative.

BISHOP: It was in error, it was not inoperative. It was not corcect

to....

LANE: Well it had two problems. The sight had two problems.

WEISBERG: Oh no, Oh no.

LANE: First of all, it was incorrectly adjusted and secondly,

it wobbled so that no one could look through it WEISBERG: And it wasn't on the rifle....

LANE: And it wasn't on the rifle wich is a third problem WEISBERG: Not only that, but when they got the same Italian rifle the

one with the C2766 serial number to the Aberdeen proving

grounds and then they tried to correct this defect, they

couldn't do it until they put shims under it, and there were

never any shims in evidence on this sight.

jovertalk)

COHEN: Do you deny that the bullets which were found were fired from

that rifle, with that aerial number, which was ordered by

Oswald?

WEISBERG: The bullets that were found? No indeed. But I deny

that there's any proof that any bullets were found that were

connected definitely with the assassination that were

traced to that rifle. 22.

LANE: I think that's the point. Commission exhibit 399, which this

is not, but it's just like this because its practically a

pure and pristine bullet, is the bullet which the Commission

says went through the back of the President's neck, exited

at the front of his throat leaving behind an entrance wound

at the front of his throat,-•went through the Govenor's back,

shattered his fifth rib, leaving a large sucking wound,

entered the Govenor's right wrist, leaving behind more than

3 grains of metal and then moved into his left thigh and then

somehow fell out onto the stretheher.

BISHOP: Superficially in the thigh.

WEISBERG: Well, left a fragment.

LANE: We know this. We know that Dr. Shaw who was the physician

who attended Govenor Connally, the bullet was, of course, found

about 2o'clock in the afternoon by Darrell Tomlinson, an

engineer at the Parkman Hospital. But 2-1/2 hours after

that bullet was found, Dr. Shaw was on television as he

emerged from the operating room to say that the Govenor was

in rather good shape, he's not in critical shape, he will

be all right, described all the wounds, and then concluded

by stating the bullet which did all of the damage is still

in Govenor Connally's left thigh. It is there now, we have

not yet removed it, yet the Commission would have us believe

that the bullet which was found 2-1/2 hours prior to that time

was in fact the bullet whichdid the damage.

BISHOP: Again, we come back to the multitude of witnesses and their

testimony, and if we are going to spgndthe evening just

unbraiding those who mistook this for a Mauser and the doctor

who said that a bullet was still in a leg, I don't think we

are being pertinent. We will be back in just a moment. 23.

BISHOP: Now let's proceed Gentlemen. Lee Harvey Oswald brought this

rifle into the depository building on the morning of the

assassination. And I'd like to hear from Mr. Lane .

LANE: Yes, well that was the conclusion which the Commission

was able to reach without regard to what the eye witnesses had

to say. This is the weapon, of course, that Jessie Curry,

the Dallas Chief of Police, said that Oswald carried it in,

assembled in a paper bag. But the Commission was more

realistic than that and said that it was disassembled and

placed in a paper bag, and Oswald carried it in that fashion.

Here isapaper bag very much like the one the Commission said

that Oswald carried it in. Here are the eye witnesses now

who made reference to this. First, we have the first

witness to make reference to the bag was Wesley Frazier who

said that he did see Oswald carry a package, and he also said

that Oswald carried a package in this fashion cupped in his

right hand, tucked under his arm in this fashion. And, he

said when Oswald left the car in which Frazier drove him to

work, bhe package in fact was invisible from the rear,

could not be seen. One other person saw the package. Her

name is Linnie Mae Randle, and Mrs. Randle is Wesley Frazier's

sister, and she described it as being a little bit more than

two feet long. Now, the Commission took the Italian carbine

and placed it in a brown paper bag, disassembled and asked

Mrs. Randle when she looked at this, if she could say that....

that is the question. "Now is the length of the package

carried any similar, anywhere near similar"? And Mrs.

Randle replied quote, "Well it wasn't that long, it definitely

wasn't that long". When she was asked to show the Commission

how Oswald carried this package, she said she could not 24.

because this exhibit was too long. Wesley Frazier was also

asked by the Commission if he could show how Oswald carried

the package. He saw him with it cupped into the hand and

under the arm, but *hen he tried and could not do it, the

Commission attorney said, "try, do the best you can", and

the record reveals that when Frazier picked it up and cupped

it in his hand the Commission counsel, I think, somewhat

charitably said, it came up almost to his ear, but it seems

to come up a little bit higher than that on me and I'm about

2-1/2 or 3 inches taller than Oswald was. If one puts this

portion of the rifle under one's arm, one sees that one can

grasp it at just about at the middle. Now we have then the

testimony of the only two people who saw Oswald with the bag

at all on November 22, and then there's one person who saw

Oswald enter the book depository building that morning, and

that's Mr. Dougherty, and Mr. Dougherty said that Oswald

had nothing in his hands that he could see. This is totally

consistent with Mr. Frazier's testimony - that when the package

was cupped under the arm and held along Oswald's side, it

could not he seen at least from the rear.

BISHOP: Now, may I ask you a question about the word "cupped"?

Did Wesley Frazier demonstrate what he meant by cup or did

he just use the expression?

LANE: He used the expression and then he demonstrated it.

•BIHOP: Which meant that he put the palm of his hand under the

package and the upper part was under his arm. Not that he

cupped it this way with the package hanging.

LANE: No, in fact, he said precisely that the package was invisible

when seen from the rear. 25.

COHEN: Let me quote his words.

BISHOP; Well, wait a minute now, hang en just a second. Let Mr. Lane

finish. I'll give you a chance to quote his words.

LANE: Dougherty, the one person who saw Oswald enter said he saw

nothing in his hands and that if he had anything there he

said he could not see it. So, we have now the testimony of

the two people who saw Oswald with the bag, both indicated

that the bag could not possibly have held the rifle and the

one person who saw Oswald enter the building, whose testimony

also shows that Oswald could not have carried the rifle into

the Hook depository building, that day.

BISHOP: Thank you, Mr. Sauvage.

SAUVAGE: Well, I have something to say about the precedent point

when those gentlemen were involved in many technicalities.

The point I want to bring up which fits the second point

too, is the fact that Oswald had to bring into the Texas

School Book Depository not only a rifle, but cartridges to

shoot with, because as far as I know a rifle is a deadly

weapon, unless it is used as a club, only if it has cartridges.

Now there is absolutely nothing the whole report saying where

Oswald got his cartridges. As a matter of act, there are

three lines out of 900 pages where the whole question of

cartridges is discussed. As far as we know, Oswald never

possessed any cartridges. BISHOP: At any time? SAUVAGE: At any time. There is absolutely no proof that he ever

bought any cartridges. LANE: While we're on the question of the ammunition, might I say

that I raised this question with the Commission regarding not 26.

only the availability, but the reliability of the ammunition

and the Commission did with this allegation, that which it

did with most of the factual material, put it in its "Speculation

and Rumor" section. This is how the Commission handled it Speculation: "Ammunition for the rifle found on the 6th

floor of the Texas School Book Depository had not been manu-

factured since the end of World War Two. The ammunition used

by Oswald, must therefore, have been about 20 years old,

making it extremely unreliable". The Commission finding....

BISHOP: This was also true of the gun.

LANE: Yes, well this is what the Commission says.

BISHOP: "They" had not been manufactured since WW II.

LANE: The Commission Finding: The ammunition used in the rifle

was American ammunition recently made by the Western Cartridge

Co. (which is the Olin Hatheson Co.) which mar•.ufactures

such ammunition currently". "Recently made which manufactures

such ammunition currently". I wonder if we might look at

slide #41 at this point to see what the maker of the ammunition

said about the ammunition. "Concerning your (this is from a Winchester Western, a company which the Commission

says supplied this recently made ammunition currently

available) "Concerning your inquiry on the six point 5

millimeter Hannlicher - Carcano cartridge, this is not being

produced commercially by our company at this time. Any

previous production on this cartridge was made against

Government contracts which were concluded back in 1944.

Therefore, any of this ammunition which is on the market today,

is Government surplus ammunition." In other words, the

Commission speculation, that which is referred to as a speculation 27.

is not being referred to the manufacturer was in fact accurate and the Commission finding again is completely

inaccurate.

BISHOP: Well, would you clarify a point for me, and I don't know the

answer to this one. If you can order this rifle from Kleins,

can you not order the ammunition from Kleins?

SAUVAGE: But he didn't.

BISHOP: Yes I know, but can you? Then, therefore, the fact that this

company discontinued the manufacturing in 1944 is not pertinent.

WEISBERG: On the contrary, it is to how good the ammunition is

currently.

LANE: Actually, the Winchester Western Co. also sent us a letter

in which they said because the ammunition is so old, it is

now of questionable reliability. The Commisiion brushed

this aside and merely said that it was reliable because it

was currently being made. Now I'm inclined to believe that

if Oswald wanted to buy that ammunition he could have

purchased it. It would have been old and unreliable

ammunition but he might have purchased it.

BISHOP: Didn't the FBI test fire this thing the following day,

Saturday?

LANE: Well, the Government did test the weapon, but BISHOP: With what kind of ammunition?

LANE: With this old Italian carbine ammunition BISHOP: Then it was reliable enough for the BBI to use it to

fire with?

LANE: Well, on occasion it didn't go off, but the fact is that one

network tested the weapon and one-third of the bullets which

it tried misfired or were engaged hang firing. One newspaper 28.

in New York City tested and 40% of the bullets didn't go off.

BISHOP: Anything more to be said on this subject?

COHEN: Yeah, I want to make two comments....

BISHOP: Short?

COHEN: No, they are middle sized. J want to go back to Hr. Lane'

analysis of the paper bag because I don't think we commented

on his comments. Let's again set the record in order. Oswald

carried a paper bag to the Book Depository, Friday morning,

November 22nd. This paper bag was seen by Mrs. Randle and

Mr. Frazier. According to the Commission, Mrs. Randle

estimated and they tested her that this paper bag was 28

inches long and 8 inches wide. Mr. Frazier estimated that

this bag was 24 inches long and 6 inches wide. The gun when

disassembled, the gun when disassembled was 34.8 inches

long which means that if the gun was in that paper bag,

Mr. Frazier is off by a little more than 10 inches and

Mrs. Randle is off by about 6 inches

SAUVAGE: The rifle is off, not Mrs. Randle.

COHEN: I say if the rifle was in the bag. I phrased it that way.

Now, Mr. Frazier so we agree that Oswald was carrying

a paper bag let's say 24 inches long and 6 inches wide which

is the smallest. Therefore, the fact Mr. Dougherty didn't

see anybody carrying anything, just shows that Mr. Dougherty

didn't see anything. We agreed that he carried something into

the building. Let me go a step further

WEISBERG: You're misquoting the testimony

COHEN: Let me go a step further

WEISBERG: You're misquoting go back and quote the testimony. 29.

COHEN: I'm not commenting on the testimony, I'm commenting on whit

Mr. Lane said.

WEISBERG: You're quoting Dougherty and you quoted him wrong.

(overtalk)

WEISBERG: May I quote the testimony.

COHEN: Please.

WEISBERG: The Commission counsel said to him, "in other words you would

say positively he had nothing in this hand". Dougherty's

reply was, "I would say that, yes sir". Now, if you want an

example of how the Commission deals with language in the

report, you read me what the Commission says of this

language. You have the report in front of you.

COHEN: I just said that Dougherty didn't see him carrying anything.

WEISBERG: That's not the same thing. Dougherty said he wasn't carrying

anything.

COHEN: Well, does that mean he wasn't

WEISBERG: Positively wasn't carrying anything

COHEN: Does that mean he wasn't?

WEISBERG: Well, I don't know what you understand positively to mean,

but I think

BISHOP: Let me ask this. The next assertation on the part of the

Commission is that Lee Harvey Oswald was present at the time

of the assassination at the window from which the shots

were fired. Now, I'd like to call on 4'r. Sauvage.

•SAUVAGE: It is precisely the fundamental point in that accusation of

the Commission - was Oswald at the window or not? The answer of

the Commission is that he was, and that he was seen there and

the big discovery of the Warren Commission is to bring forward

an eye witness, an eye witness who mistakenly has been 30.

considered new, but he wasn't new at all, because everybody

had talked about Mr. Brennan,in the first days of the assassination

Now, was Mr. Brennan able to see from the sidewalk in

front of the Texas School Book Depository, a rifleman hiding

behind a sixth floor window?

BISHOP: Excuse me, wasn't he in the middle of Dealey Plaza. He

wasn't on the grass.

SAUVAGE: No, Brennan, the witness, the eye witness brought forward

by the Commission was on the sidewalk sitting on the concrete.

BISHOP: On the same side of the building that the school was

SAUVAGE: No, on the opposite side.

BISHCP: That's what I thought in the middle of Dealey Plaza.

SAUVAGE: No, no, not in the middle....(overtalk) (just across

the street, yeah, just across the street there

are three streets that go through there and he was on the...)

On the same street, the same street

BISHOP: Looking up at the school

SAUVAGE: Now, the window was half closed

COHEN: About 150 feet away from the window.

LANE: 120 feet actually. I wonder if we could have slide 44 and

then as you speak, Mr. Sauvage, I can point it out if you like.

SAUVAGE: Yes, besides there are two other slides that are with that

slide the Dillard picture, showing the window which is

#20, and #21, which we could see also. He was, according

to the Commission, sitting on a crate of books using other

books on the window as a gun rest which means he was at least

one foot away from the window because of his position there.

31.

BISHOP: Assuming that this is the moment that someone is prepared

to fire a shot, but would he be in that position all the time

he was there?

SAUVAGE: Well, he was in that position when he was shooting.

LANE: According to Mr. Brennan,he..saw him fire.

SAUVAGE: He saw him fire from a standing position a standing

position yes the window is half closed, the window is

half closed and if you look at this you will see what can be

seen behind the window if a man, if the man is not leaning

out of the window, but is behind the window, at least a foot

away. Now, besides that little point, Mr. Brennan, the eye

witness of the Commission has stated that when he saw Oswald

firing the shot, Oswald was standing and the Commission has

said the report itself is oblieged to admit that it's

absolutely out of the question because of the angle of the

shot, because of the half closed window and so on, that the

shot could have been fired by a man standing. It's out of the

question.

BISHOP: In other words the glass of the window would have been in

his way....he could hold a rifle through the bottbffi part of

the window (overtalk) he simply couldn't do it.... out the window yes, shall we try it....

WEISBERG: Let me show you a picture.

BISHOP: He's going to do it a little better than that, he's going to

demonstrate it with the window.

BISHOP: this may be pretty sharp. That window is a little more

than half way up you can see the top tbf it. 32.

WEISBERG: Actually it's not, they measured it.

(overtalk)

SAUVAGE: You can also see something else...it's how dirty the upper

part is, and don't forget it's 12:30 and the sun is coming

down shich means upper part_, of the window is a plain mirror.

You can not see through.

BISHOP: It can go a little higher than that. According to this

photograph, I can see the sash is up beyond the cross bar.

LANE: Now, if Oswald was standing at the window firing, there

being glass here, of course, he was firing through the

window.

(overtalk)

BISHOP: Well, wait a minute, he would be standing nn the floor

wouldn't he?

LANE: Precisely where I'm standing now. Therefore, the Commission,

as Mr. Sauvage indicated, was obliged to say that Oswald

was either kneeling or sitting on the floor which would

explain then how he was able to fire without breaking the

glass.

BISHOP: How would it be if you sat on the floor a moment. He was

kneeling or sitting you say.

LANE: I'm kneeling now.

BISHOP: You're a little bit bigger than Oswald aren't you?

LANE: Yes.

BISHOP: But if you were sitting.

WEISBERG: The floor was a lot thicker than that.

BISHOP: Yes....but....but about 18 inches Now, if you were

leaning out towards your right the way the motorcade was going 33.

(overtalk)

SAUVAGE: I think he was even farther away BISHOP: Not only that, but the rifle was not outside the window

as I understand it.

(overtalk)

WEISBERG: Brennan said 70%. He saw 70% of the rifle. This is what he

said, and no scope.

(overtalk he said 70 to 85 WEISBERG: Well, I was trying to conservative.

SAUVAGE: To come back to our point. The Commission admits that it

is impossible for Oswald to have been standing, so it admits

that its eye witness, its star witness, is completely

mistaken.

BISHOP: (overtalk not its start witness...its a witness....

it's not the only witness its star witness SAUVAGE: It's a star witness because if they cannot establish that

Oswald was not at the window they have no case.

BISHOP: I would say that Marina Oswald was more of a star witness

than Brennan

SAUVAGE: Oh, she was more popular.

WEISBERG: Congressman Ford said that Brennan was the most important

witness to appear before the Commission. He's a member of

the Commission.

(overtalk)

He's the only one they have placing Oswald at the window

though. SAUVAGE: The story of !r. Brennan is not finished. The Commission

simply said he was mistaken by....when he said that Oswald

was standing, but that he was not mistaken when he gave the 34.

weight of Oswald and then the height of Oswald, when he

pretended to be able to identify him. Now come the series

of identifications. BISHOP: What makes you say he pretended? SAUVAGE: Because the Commission says he pretended. He changed his

testimony. There are, I believe, 7 ways of Brennan of

stating at different dates what he saw, and what he didn't

see. LANE: And on November 22nd when Brennan was taken to the police

line-up, Brennan looked at Oswald in the line-up and did not

identify him, the man who was in the window.

(overtalk) SAUVACE: One more statement and then we are finished with Mr.

Brennan. That Brennan admitted that he saw Oswald on television

before going to the line-up The case of Mr. Brennan -

Eye Witness! COHEN: I think even defenders of the Commission would grant that

Brennan is a shaky witness if it's a question of positively

identifying Oswald as the man that he saw, Brennan saw, at

the 6th floor window. WEISBERG: How else could they do it? COHEN: This....the Commission only has the witnesses it has, and it

didn't have a witness which could positively place Oswald

at that window Whether the whole case falls apart as

a result of that is another question. I agree that Brennan's

eye witness identification of Oswald is shaky. As for whether

he was so malignantly in error about standing, I mean, I

myself if I saw someone kneeling in front of a window, a

window which was only 18 inches above the floor, might assume 35.

that he was standing because I don't know about many

windows it seems to me an easy error, but I agree (overtalk)

BISHOP: Mr. Sauvage made his point.

SAUVAGE: The point is made, the point is made that do you, when you

say BISHOP: I don't think it has been controverted.

SAUVAGE: The question is, now, can we admit that the Commission has

proof that Oswald was the killer. If the Commission, according

to its only defender here, they admit that there is no

proof for eye witness that Oswald is the man with the rifle,

the man you have to prove that used the rifle.

BISHOP: Now, please let's not get hack into it. I want to ask Hr.

Lane about that grassy knoll, that little knoll with the

smoke.

LANE: Suppose we begin first of all if we can have the aerial view

of the Dealey Plaza which I think is slide 44 now, that might be helpful. While we're getting that I think we should

begin with the Commission's conclusion. No credible

evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad

bridge over the triple underpass, the nearby railroad yards

or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository building.

And another conclusion: In contrast to the testimony of the

witnesses who heard and observed shots fired from the

Depository, the Commission's investigation has disclosed no

credible evidence that any shots were fired from anywhere

else. This is an aerial scene of Dealey Plaza. Let's see what

the witnesses told the Commission so the Commission was able

to state that there is no credible evidence which even suggests 48.

FBI report did not say that it was a front entrance wound,

the FBI report totally ignored the wound in the front of the

President's neck.

BISHOP: Alright. Close of subject for the moment. I want to ask

about Oswald's movement in the depository and I'd like to ask

Mr. Sauvage.

SAUVAGE: It's a very important point too, because first of all the

Commission, the Warren Report brings it up as a confirmation

of Oswald's presence by saying that his movements in the

building were consistent with his presence at the 6th floor

window. Now, in March 1964, in an American magazine, I

brought up the question if there was any checking of the

time used by Baker, the motorcyclist who was the first one

to enter the building and who found Oswald in the lunchroom

BISHOP: On the second floor.

SAUVAGE: and the time necessary for Oswald to come down to the

second floor. In March, according to the Warren Commission,

this checking was done with stop watches and here are the

results as in the Warren Rerport. They did it twice. At

one of the experiments, if you take Baker's time, the shortest

Baker's time

BISHOP: Excuse me, to point up what you're saying, you mean the time

required for an assassin to leave the 6th floor and get to

the lunchroom on the 2nd floor?

SAUVAGE: Yes.

• BISHOP: is what you're talking about.

SAUVAGE: Yes,....is the time needed by Baker, who

BISHOP: Yes, who was clocked

SAUVAGE: to come down .9.

BISHOP: Yes

SAUVACE: Who was clocked only in March, not in December not

when the FBI record was made and so on....there was no

checking of this. They have also to add that Oswald in order

to get down had a lot of things to do. He had first to get

out of his corner, near the window, with the books, the book

crates there. He had to hide the rifle....

BISHOP: Right.

SAUVAGE: he had to run down, and there is a small episode which

I skip about a Coca Cola bottle which has disappeared in

the report in spite of the fact that Baker first said that

Oswald was holdiNg a Coca Cola bottle in his hand which would

add to the time he needed for him to be there. Now, if the

two were compared in March and there were two experiments done,

two tests were made. In the first test in taking Baker they

clocked one minute and 15 seconds while the Secret Service

man who imitated....who did what Oswald was supposedto have

done coming down, needed one minute 18 seconds. That means

according to the clock watches of the Commission and without

even entering the fact that the Commission shortened the time

of Oswald and lengthened the time of Baker, in spite of this

there is a difference of three seconds which means that in

this test the Warren Commision has given Oswald a clear

alibi If Oswald was, according to this test, if Oswald

was at a sixth floor window, he could not have been in the

lunchroom at the moment Baker saw him there.

BISHOP: Well, from the Time of the final shot, didn't Baker go off

a motorcycle? SO.

SAUVAGE: Yes.

WEISBERG: First time for timing

SAUVAGE: Yes, first time he ran his motorcycle on....

BISHOP: And he ran directly to the front entrance.

SAUVAGE: Yes, where he met Truly, the manager of the building.

BISHOP: Exactly.

SAUVAGE: ....and they ran up one staircase, because the elevator

wasn't there, so they ran up one staircase.

BISHOP: Yes, but there was some conversation between the two

(overtalk)

COHEN: They went to the back of the building to see the elevator,

and then they came back and upstairs.

SAUVAGE: No, no they didn't come back because the staircase was there....

(overtalk)

BISHOP: But didn't the policemen ask somebody...did somebody use this

elevator? Didn't he ask Roy Truly?

WEISBERG: No, Roy Truly hollered, "let the elevator go."

LANE: No, Roy Truly yelled I wish I might add this because I

think it is relevant. And that is that Truly testified and

stated also to agents that the reason he went up there with

Baker, was becausethat he believed the shots had come from

the railroad and he thought that Baker wanted to go up to the

roof and look over into the railroad yards and further,

before Truly testified, he gave a long interview to CBS, which

unfortunately the Commission never looked at and CBS will

not allow anyone to purchase it. And in that interview,

Truly said that I saw, heard, the shots, then the police-

men came up and we ran up one flight of stairs, and he was 51.

asked specifically how long did it take you to get up there.

Now this is very early before the stop watches had been put

on Oswald's movements, so therefore, Truly was just stating

what he believed he knew, not what might be convenient for

the Commission. He said, "it was a matter of seconds,

certainly less than a minute between the time the shots

were fired and the time I saw Oswald on the 2nd floor."

SAUVAGE: Now, even without that declaration we have the clock

watches of the Commission.

COHEN: But didn't the Commission have two tests?

SAUVAGE: Yes.

COHEN: And one test was a minute and thirty seconds and one test a

minute and 15 seconds.

SAUVAGE: The first test gave Oswald a clear alibi of 3 seconds.

Now the second test, Baker used one minute and 30 seconds

and Oswald one minute and 40 Oswald, I mean the Secret Service man who imitated Oswald, one minute and 40 seconds,

which gave Oswald a possibility of having been there by 16

seconds. But not if you analyze the way the Commission got

to the 16 seconds you will make quite a number of discoveries.

I will mention only one, mention two let's say. First of

all, if you can get the projection of the second floor lunch-

room. Now, there is in the corner the entrance to the

lunchroom. There's two doors. There is a door first the

platform and coming onto the second floor. To the right

there is the lunchroom but someone coming down from the sixth

floor, it's to the left upper corner.

BISHOP: This is the lunchroom that we're talking about. Sl. A

SAUVAGE: Someone coming down from the sixth floor cannot enter the

lunchroom without passing

BISHOP: li'ithout passing through here....

SAUVAGE: No, this he doesn't need, but he has to pass it which means

that the time needed by Baker, is not the time that he saw

Oswald in the lunchroom, but the time the first of the

two men arriving on the 2nd flour, which was Truly arrived

on his eye level, arrived at the seoond floor. Oswald must

already have been indide the lunchroom. Which shortens the

whole thing by several seconds. Now the second argument I

wanted to bring forward here is the fact that in order to

get the time of one minute and 30 seconds for Baker according

to the hearings and the exhibits, the Commission had to make

Baker walk, while Baker himself stated that he came out from

the second floor running. The word "running" is also in

the hearing. So while the Commission in its reconstitution

made him walk, he was running. So besides the fact that it

is not logical that a man running up with his revolver in

hand, trying to get, I don't know where, trying to get the

assassin of the President, that he would walk up there is

even another example he says as he passed the little door at

the entrance he bumped into Truly, that fast they were going.

Now it's out of the question the man was walking. Besides

he says, "I was running;" so even in this second test where

Oswald could have been on the 6th floor by 16 seoonds

difference the Commission can get to 16 seconds only by....

BISHOP: By forcing the man to walk. 52.

SAUVAGE: By making the man to walk, and by using all kinds of other

tricks like, for instance, stopping the clock watches for

Baker only when he arrived at the lunchroom while they should

have stopped at the moment he arrives at eye level on the

2nd floor.

COHEN: I think it should be added that the timing for Oswald was

also on the basis of what they called a fast walk and didn't

account for him running down the steps WEISBERG: Curve....Curve!!:

BISHOP: Well, just a moment, just a moment gentlemen.

COHEN: Just because you strike out on my curves, Mr. Weisberg

you don't have to be

BISHOP: Please please Now, Mr. Sauvage has made his point I believe. I'd like to go on to the photographic evidence,

the real, cropped, and withheld, and I'd like to ask Mr.

Weisberg about this.

WEISBERG: I'd like to make one pasiing comment on this. There are

two parts that Mr. Sauvage left out that I think bear very

importattly on this because this is the only proof that

Oswald even could have been on the sixth floor. This addresses

itself to the basic integrity of the Commission staff.

It is over and above that, the only way in which the

Commission could really show Oswald, at the time of the

assassination, was there. First, when the reconstruction

began, Baker's timing began at the first shot. The other two

shots had to be fired. Commissioner Dulles asked

about this. First shot he said. Baker said, "first shot."

They gave Baker a 100 feet benefit. Oswald had also to get

rid of this rifle. 53.

LANE: After firing some more shots.

WEISBERG: Yes, now how do we get rid of the rifle under this reconstruction:

Secret Service John Joe Hallet was inside this virtual stockade

of boxes, on which no, none of Oswald's fingerprints were

ever found. He was inside,- he hid the gun, and if you want

to see how the gun was hidden, I'll show you a picture. This

is the point. Now I'd like....speaking of the pictures I'd

like to.get-to Tthotographic evidence

BISHOP: That's the point I wish you would WEISBERG: - I'm sorry; I'm sorry we don't have this in a bigger form

because.again I'm addressing myself here not only to the

basic evidence, but to the integrity of- the Commission staff. •

The function of the staff is to inform the Commission, to-- give them the materials with which to work. 'One of the

famous pictures was taken by.AP photographer James Altgens:

• (who's known-as Ike.) This is one of the most used and one- - of the most abused pictures of the entire unfortunate tragic-

events. It's entered into the record under a number of

differnt ,and contradictory exhibits, but.there is a picture

--of thecropped version which can be put on if somebody remembers,.

it.. • .. BISHOPr.' That's the one showing the President's car and the one behind-

-it, right?

-4.7:1SBERn: -Yes,.-....but let me.....

BISHOP: - The one behind it with the Secret Service men on the running- -board. WEISBERG: Let me show that, I think this is a graphic way of showing

it because there it is, there it is. This is what the 54.

Commission was told is the picture taken by James W. Altgens.

There are other purposes for which this picture can be

used and I won't want to address myself to them now. Now, I'd

like to show that is a comparison between that, and not

the entire picture, which at the time I did this book I

couldn't get, but the biggest version I could get from the

Associated Press. This is the version that the Commission

members were given. This is the version that I was able to

get, not the complete, but most of the complete original,

and the entire right side of this picture was cut off. I'm

not even going to go into all the things this shows, but the

most dramatic thing is, and I must say in advance this does

not necessarily represent anything sinister because I

believe nothing sinister about the President's guard.

believe they are brave men. The President's guard very

clearly doesn't know anything unusual is happening, but in the

fourth car, which is in the picture, the Secret Service

escort of the Governor, the door is open and they seem to

be pouring out. Here we have a building cut off of the picture

entirely in which the police radio log show a man was

immediately arrested before Oswald. The Commission had no

interest in the arrest of this man, arrested as having no

business there. There is an open window. There are other

things about this, but I address myself at this point.... BISHOP: I seem to miss the point on it because when you say no one

seems to feel that anything has happened. Why are these men looking back? WEISBERG: They're looking in all directions if you see the whole

thing. 55.

BISHOP: No, the two men are looking in the same directions.

WEISBERG: Yes, well now I don't want to bog this down by going into

the Secret Service regulations, but this, there are other

two on this side are not LANE: This is very difficult to believe unless you see pictures

taken from another angle, but I assure you those two Secret

Service men are not looking back at the book depository building.

This is a picture taken with telescopic WEISBERG: 105 millimeter.

LANE: A telescopic lens. It is, therefore, a foreshortened picture.

The whole front of the picture is pushed backward. The same

picture in fact was taken from another angle by Major Willis,

who was in Dealey Plaza, and that picture shows clearly that

the two gentlemen, one of them is looking directly at the grassy knoll, and the other gentleman is looking between

the book depository building and the grassy knoll.

BISHOP: And this is after the first shot has been fired.

(overtalk)

LANE: You see the President in the left foreground grasping his

throat. He's already been struck, I'll point it out

(overtalk)

BISHOP: And the shot, the first one at least has been fired. LANE: Yes the first shot has been fired.

WEISBERG: That is the equivalent of the 255th frame and is a Zapruder

film. Now, here again in talking about the lens we address

'ourselves to the integrity of the record. Here we have a

professional photographer and I think any lawyer will tell

you that to lay the foundation for th e picture, we should 56.

know, the Commission should have known what his equipment

was. He was not even asked what kind of camera he used,

what kind of lens he used, or anything at all of that sort. BISHOP: But, if they didn't crop this picture the way you say they

did, and I can see that they cropped it, what does it show?

What did they withhold by cropping the picture. WEISBERG: Well, I've already told you what they've shown....

the alertness to what was'going on, of the awareness to what

was going on, of the Vice President's escort. I've pointed

to the open window of a building that they've cut out

entirely where they also cut out the arrest of a man there

as a suspect for having no business there. There are many

other things, but I'll restrict myself at this point to

ore. Recause.this was irrefutably identified by Lyndal

Shaneyfelt, photographic expert of the Commission who had the

same function in the FBI, as exactly coinciding with the

255th frame of thes Zapruder film. By using this picture,

in its unaltered form, not its altered form, but showing the

rest of the background, there need never have been any

questionable reconstruction. The camera moved at 18.3

frames per second which Shaneyfelt said and that meant that with

this picture the Commission in their reconstruction could have

moved backwards or forwards and known where the President

was and in so tiny a fragment of time that I don't think you

can appraise it -- every 1/18th of a second. Now, how in

the world more precise can you possibly be? Instead of that

they go through a whole dubious, absolutely phony reconstruction

beginning from a totally invalid base and continuing through 57.

nothing but invalid, not duplication.

(overtalk) LANE: Well, I wonder if I might address myself to another aspect

of the picture, which is the one which received the most

comment at the time. It shows the President being struck,

so is Governor Connally, as he turns to his right and in

the background is a man in the book depository building

doorway, who appeared to many people in the country to be

Lee Harvey Oswald. I wonder if we can see slide 16 please.

Well, here is a blown up picture of the same thing. Note

the clothing of the man and the bones in the. construction

of his face. Now, let's compare that with #16, slide 16

which is a picture of Oswald at the time of his arrest which

I know will be here in just one moment, and ynu note the

similarity in the clothing and in the face. Now the Commission

said that this man in the picture, of course, in the Book

Depository doorway was not....

BISHOP: I didn't expect that this was going to be brought up at this

particular time, but as long as it has you just know that

Mr. Cohen has either LANE: May I finish the point though...the Commission said that it

was not Oswald. It was a man named Billy Lovelady and #15

is Lovelady...if we may....

BISHOP: And didn't Mr. Lovelady also say that that was he?

LANE: Yes, we'll come to that. #15, if we might see Mr. Lovelady.

Now the Commission never saw a picture of Lovelady and the

Commission never saw Lovelady at all. One attorney questioned

Lovelady, the Commission was willing to rest upon that and 58.

Mr. Lovelady's own statement to the lawyer that he is in fact

the person in the doorway. But, Mr. Lovelady said something

else, he said he was wearing a red and white strip ed

sportshirt, buttoned near the neck and was wearing no jacket

at all November 22nd.

BISHOP: But he identified himself and some of his fellow employees

identified him

LANE: Yes, Mr. Shelley saw BISHOP: ....so it was not Lee Harvey Oswald.

COHEN: Wait....wait wait wait a minute. Not only did Mr. Shelley say it was him, but Mr. Frazier whom you are using

with your brown bag before Mr. Buell Frazier (overtalk) who presumeably was honest about the brown bag„hut is now lying.--

(overtalk)

WEISBERG: What did Frazier say? Tell us his exact words.

COHEN: I don't remember his exact words.

WEISBERG: But you're pretending to, yes indeed, he was standing there,

but he never said that that was Lovelady standing in that

exact position in that exact picture.

LANE: Well, he probably didn't know he was on camera.

WEISBERG: Lovelady could have been standing any place on those steps

and that would have been true....

(overtalk)

BISHOP: But, even Lovelady conceded that he was standing.

LANE: Isn't it a fact though although Mr. Cohen only quotes Shelley, .

Shelley did say in the only interview that was published that 59.

Lovelady was there, he was sitting on the steps, now clearly

that man is standing up. Of course, it is possible the man

stood up when the shots were fired.

BISHOP: We are hair-splitting again.

COHEN: We are not, because the Commission never asked that_relevant

question

(overtalk)

BISHOP: Yes please, I'll get back to it. I just want to get to

Penn Jones, I've been all night trying to get to him.

COHEN: Because the Commission says it is not Oswald.

LANE: The man is now standing two people are standing next to him (overtalk) No, they don't agree with him, Mr. Cohen. You fall into the same error after Mr. Weisberg has corrected

you.

WEISBERG: There's a very simple answer to this and I pointed it out.

The very simple answer was to print this picture side by side

with the picture of Lovelady showing that he owns that shirt

and was wearing it that day. The report does not do it.

LANE: Well, they couldn't say it, because he said he was not wearing clothing similar to that at all.

BISHOP: Please, now the next point is Lee Harvey Oswald killed

Officer Tippit.

WEISBERG: One more altered picture that you promised to let me get in,

and this is a seriously altered picture. No, this is not at

all funny.

BISHOP: No, I don't think it's funny I just mean I'd like to... WEISBERG: Because the Commission said that the first point at which

a shot from the sixth floor window could have struck the

President was frame #210 of the Zapruder film. Now, we 60.

should say that Abraham Zapruder was an amateur photographer

who recorded this entire thing. During 20 frames of his

motion picture, the President was all, or in part blocked

by a read sign. These frames were numbered by the FBI.

Now the Commission says the. first time, the crucial frame in

the Cornission's own words, was 210. They printed a selection

of the slides beginning with 171, the frames, going through

334. These were supposed to be seriatim, and they are in

Vol. 18, the first 80 pages, of Vol.18 of theappendix, until

they get to frame 207. 208 is not there, 209 is not there,

nor 210, nor 211. But what do we have, and this is a

reproduction of page 19 of Vol. 18. We have frame 207 with

an obvious mark through here. A gross discloration. I've

seen the original, it's blue. It's consistent with the

adhesive used in a splice, and by God, the most amateur

splice. Eastman Kodak ought to not take their business

anymore. This is a splice, this dark line, right through

that picture. BISHOP: What do you think their purpose was? WEISBERG: I'm not going to put myself in their mind. Let me tell

you the fact. This is the corruption, the destruction, of

the essential cvioence. Tnis is the point at which for the first time a shot from the sixth floor window could have

struck the President. The Commission says that's where the

shot came from. Look at this tree. COHEN: Are you going to tell us that the President's car is behind

a sign in those three pictures. 61.

WEISBERG: I'm going to tell you what I choose to tell you. If you want

to ask me a question, you ask me when I'm finished. This is

not a curve ball, this is a foul ball. Now here you have a

tree, here you have a tree (overtalk by Cohen)..

you inspire me Look Jim. Here is the trunk of the tree

all the way over here 20% away is the upper part of the tree.

Look at these people, they're cut off at the waist. They

have no feet. This is shocking....

LANE: Well, may I

WEISBERG: I'd like to finish....This is the crucial frame the Commission

says.

BISHOP: No, not the crucial frame, they said that this is the first

point at which he could have been shot.

COHEN: By Oswald.

BISHOP: Yes, (overtalk) (from the sixth floor window...in frame

210 yes)

WEISBERG: But frame 210

BISHOP: I don't think anyone quarrels with what Zapruder did because....

WEISBERG: Not Zapruder....

BISHOP: with what he did

LANE: No one charged Zapruder with suppressing the frame, we're

charging the Commission.

WEISBERG: I'd like to ask a question on this, and I'd like the same

question to apply to the other corrupted picture. This is the

absnluto destruction of evidence, and it addresses itself

again, I'm going to emphasize, to the integrity of the staff.

I can't imagine Jerry Ford cutting one, or Senator Cooper 61. A cutting the other one in half, but what the members of the

Commission saw is what the staff gave them.

BISHOP: But, could you tell me your idea of their reason for trimming

this thing?

WEISBERG: I am not going to put myself into anybody else's mind, I

am giving the fact.

LANE: Well let me add, if I might, to another series of pictures

taken and almost as crucial, taken by Orville Nix, also used

by the Commission to determine where the limousine was when

the vaiious shots were fired. Mr. Nix, when we questioned him

in Dallas,said that he had the picutres, he gave them to the

FBI but when a copy was returned to him, he said....

First of all, his camera was destroyed by the FBI, so that

he could never tell how fast the camera moves, which is of

course, crucial to the case.

BISHOP: Couldn't you get a duplicate of it.

LANE: Well every camera is a little bit different....

BISHOP: Only nightly. I have two myself....

LANE: Very slightly is the difference between whether it was

possible....

WEISBERG: I would like to answer that

BISHOP: Now you are now talking about tenths of a second in difference.

LANE: That's precisely the area we're in, tenths of a second,

because a lot happens in a tenth of a second, we have a

couple of frames. The fact is this, however, that Nix also

said that when he received his film back from the DBI, quote:

"several frames were missing." The film was ruined by the

62.

FBI he said. It was the ruired film,the altered film which

was shown to the Commission.

BISHOP: Yes, but how do you know, for example, T.Ir. Lane, that they

didn't trim those frames out so that they could blow them

up?

LANE: I saw Nix's film because hiwas kind enough to show it to

me when I was in his home in Dallas.

tISHOP: Yes, but I say, assuming that they took the frames out as

you charge, how do you know that they didn't do that....

as you charge. What Nix charges

LANE: I'm just repeating what he says.

BISHOP: You support what....what he has to say.

(overtalk)

WEISBERG: I would like to put this on a different level

LANE: I can see no reason for Nix to maize up that story

BISHOP: Yes, that's what I say, you support him.

LANE: I have seen his film and it still has many jumps in it.

BISHOP: Yes, well couldn't they have taken those out and blown those

pictures up?

WEISBERG: They don't have to take them out to do it.

LANE: You get copies of them and do it, you don't tear apart a

piece of crucial evidence.

WEISBERG: We're addressing ourselves to something very unusual in our

history. This is the assassination of an American President.

This is the investigation of the

BISHOP: I don't have to be reminded.

WEISBERG: assassination of an American President. Such things

are totally impermissable.

LANE: And this is not the end of altered photographs. If we can

see 12 for a moment. 63.

WEISBERG: No, excuse me, one other thing before we get to that. The

question that Jim raised about using a different camera. Let's

go to where they used the same camera. Let's take the Zapruder

camera. They had a re-enactment with Zapruder from frame

222 to frame 334. They timed the Zapruder film. It took •• five seconds to go from frame 222 to 334. Then the recon-

struction, which is basic in the Commission's whole thesis,

the same camera, the same thing, a difference of 30%.

No questions asked. The assistant counsel to Commission

couldn't have cared less, and a 30% error and no questions

asked. And the same camera, not a different camera.

COHEN: Well, I don't understand what could you make that a little

clearer.

WEISBERG: I think everybody else understands.

LANE: I understand it. Can we move on to one more altered

photograph and this is very brief. It's number 12. It's

a picture taken by retired Air Force Major, Phillip Willis,

and he was questioned by agents of the FBI after this

picture was taken. He took, in fact, 12 slides in Dealey

Plaza that day. This perhaps is the only important one. It

showed a man over here, who the agents of the FBI said was

Jack Ruby. An FBI agent said that this is proof that Ruby

was in front of the book depository building, clearly labeled,

when the picture was taken. Willis said he took the picture

five minutes after the shots were fired. Now the Commission

was later to state that Ruby was not at the scene, and the

Commission then published this picture when they published

all of Willis' pictures. Play we see the next one. You

notice what the Commission did, they cropped it. They removed 64.

ele Fan who zweared to be Jack Ruby and this is a photograph

of a Commission exhibit, exactly as the Commission publsihed

it. They just took the man out. Now, I don't know if the

man if Ruby or not. I do know this, we are entitled to

see all of the evidence, not the Commission's cropped version

of the evidence in order to

MISBERG: I don't think that any member of the Commission took the

scissors to it.

COHEN: Yes, but the Commission takes full responsibility for what

the staff does.

WEISBERG: Yeah, but the staff did it.

LANE: I would think the staff did do it.

COHEN; Why?

WEISBERG: Do you think that Justice Warren took a scissor to that picture?

COHEN: My question was why did the staff do it.

WEISBERG: You tell me why. I'm telling you they did it. You give me

one good reason for it.

LANE: But, may I ask this Mr. Cohen, we know....we know....

COHEN: A little careless

WEISBERG: A little careless. The President's a little bit dead.

COHEN: Are you blaming the staff on that, Mr. !eisberg? WEISBERG: No sir! But we are addressing ourselves to something basic

to the integrity of the entire country.

LANE: May I say Mr. Bishop, I don't think that the answer that the

Commission or its staff was a little bit careless is an

answer. Here, for example, is Commission exhibit 5. It

was used by the Commission as proof that Oswald shot halker's General Walker. It's a picture of Gen,' - . car here and on the automobile, home. Of course, you can s- 65.

tl'ere is obviously a tear. Someone has torn that. When

Marina Oswald, whom you refer to as the star witness, I

believe, testified, she said that when she was first shown

that picture by the FBI agents that there was no tear in it.

The license plate numbers and letters were clear. She also

said that when she was shown the picture by the Commission,

the license plate numbers were clear. And then, when it

was finally published in this form, there was a big hole, the

license plate has been torn off. And, I suggest that one

cannot say that it was carelessness which tore this off.

COHEN: Well, I've said carelessness, so I've answered the question

why; so, will you answer the question why?

BISHOP: I still think....

LANE: I know this. If Marina Oswald was truthful in describing

this, what she said was very serious. She said the picture

was mutilated after it was in the ahnds of the Government...

BISHOP: But when you say it was serious....

COHEN: You haven't answered the question.

BISHOP: This is precisely what I would like to address myself to.

LANE: I'd just like to finish this last point, if I may. BISHOP: Men you say it is serious, I agree with you, but I would

like to know why they would do it. that advantage would they

in doctoring....

LANE: This is how we can find....

TTISBERG: I would like to know too. I would like to know too.

LANE: I know how we can find out, Mr. Bishop. I know how we can

find out. I say this, let's look at the evidence. Let the

Commission.... 66,

BISHOP: I mean, is there any advantage in our obliterating a license

number.

(overtalk)

WEISBERG: To hide the identity of the car.

LANE: I can tell you more than that. Perhaps this picture was

taken, Mr. Bishop, during one of those two years when

Oswald was out of the United States. Perhpas the license

plates would have shown that and then, therefore, the

Commission's conclusion that Oswald to6k the picture would,

of course, would not be an accurate conclusion. That's one

possibility. I don't know what the others are, but I do

know that if we can persuade the President to declassify

the evidence, then we can make some changes.

(overtalk)

WEISBERG: Do you know what's still classified, Jim?

BISHOP: What?

WEISBERG: Not only the testimony that's off the record, but the actual

stenographic transcript of what is printed, it still classified

top-secret. LANE: And you know what is printed, what is printed in Vol. One

of the hearings it says the Commission reserved the right to

make changes designed to improve the accuracy and clarity

of the witnesses statement. Now, how do you improve the

accuracy of a statement by changing it?

.COHEN: On the other hand....(overtalk)....there isn't a significant

criticism that has been made of the Warren Commission, by any

critic that I know of, which is not based on the 26 Vols.

which the Warren Commission themselves produced.

BISHOP: Alright, please let's get onto the next point. Lee Harvey 67.

Oswald !Ailed Officer Tippit in an apparent attempt to escape

and I'd like to hear from Penn Jones, I'm sure he's still

there. PENN JONES: Oswald came passed his rooming house in a taxi, and walked

back to the rooming house, went inside and apparently put on

a jacket and apparently got a pistol, and then walked, apparently,

from the rooming house on North Beckley....

BISHOP: Yes,

JONES: to 10th and Patton Street where he was met by Officer

Tippit in a patrol car. And after, the evidence says, after

he leaned over and had a short conversation on the opposite

side of the driver's car with Tippit, and then Tippit slowly

got out of the car and started around the motor of the car

when he was shot a number of times by Tippit, who then ran BISHOP: By Oswald, you mean.

JONES: Oswald then ran in a different diredtion and was seen by

Wareen Reynolds and BISHOP: And emptied the shells out of the gun.

WEISBERG: The Commission timed Oswald's movements from his boarding

house to the scene of the Tippit killing. It began with a

base that was altered in every possible way in favor of the

Commission's case...now their timing...if you want me to go

into that, I will.

BISHOP: Yes, but how did they alter it, is what I would like to know

because I have a pretty good memory for this section.

WEISBERG: I'll give you an example. Penn Jones has told us that Oswald

did this very strange thing. Pe took a taxicab. He didn't begin there, but let's just start with the taxicab. 68.

:;f"-;:cnt versions Is iron the same witness. The

taxicab driver Whaley, to whom we should return. One

story is that he went to the SOO block. The second story is

that he went to the 700 block. The report says it makes no

difference, he would have gotten there the same time anyway.

This is the sort of thing the last person to see Oswald

BISHOP: But do you think that the change in Whaley's testimony, after

looking at his trip card, which tells where I went, and how

much I charged for the fare, and I believe he said the fare

was 95f, and he got a nicket tip. He was presented with a

dollar by Lee Harvey Oswald, whothen walked to wherever he

was going and it was back tohis rooming house. Do you

think that dropping him off at the SOO block or 700 blcok

has a bearing on it (overtalk bbsolutely....

trip card....)

LANE: It's very crucial.

BISHOP: Now look, according to you, everything is crucial.

LANE: Many things are crucial, Mr. Bishop. We're dealing with a

criminal case and many things sometimes seconds, and minutes,

and blocks are absolutely crucial. And in this case it is -

crucial.

BISHOP: He's not on his way to kill Tippit. He's on his way home.

WEISBERG: Excuse me let me answer this....

LANE: But he didn't have time....

WEISBERG: Trip card

LANE: to kill Tippit if he had to walk

WEISBERG: Trip card.

LANE: according to the Commission's own standards. 60.

WEISBERG: Trip card. If the Commission had used the only written

evidence the trip card, Oswald was innocent. He couldn't

possibly have gotten there, so instead they got Whaley's

testimony. And the testimony is a two block difference. Now

the Commission didn't have enough seconds, the last person

to see Oswald was Mrs. Roberts, the rooming housekeeper, who

saw him not walking down to kill Tippit, but standing waiting

for a bus going in a different direction. But let's forget

that because the Commission forgot it. Let's just stick to

what the Commission had in the report. They timed, beginning

at the time they said, 1:03. Assume it's right. Their time

on reconstructing Oswald's movements to where Tippit was

killed couldn't get Tippit there....couldn't get Oswald

there until S minutes after it was already on the police

radio. I think that answers it.

LANE: And may I just supplement that BISHOP: Now wait a minute, how about the bullets, weren't they

tested ballistically?

LANE: The bullets were in no way related to the pistol. The shells

found at the scene and later delivered through various sources into the hands of the Dallas police were relatdd, but

the bullets themselves were not related.

WEISBERG: Couldn't be.

LANE: No, of course not.

(overtalk)

BISHOP: Wasn't he seen emptying the bullets out of the gun? And

reloading, and was seen at a sort of dog trot across....

(overtalk) 70.

SAUVAGE: "nsn't he seen? That's a ytestion I've been expecting

because the whole case, besides the argument to which I

agree.

BISHOP: And while you're covering that point, would you mind also

covering the point where the jacket was found in the auto

yard?

SAUVAGE: No, that's the only point I ma going to mention here is that

the whole case against Tippit is based on eye witness, so

called eye witness.

COHEN: You mean the whole case?

SAUVAGE: The whole case on Tippit.

COHEN: You mean to say the fact that Oswald was found with a gun,

a pistol, which he had ordered

SAUVAGE: That is the following question

COHEN: in the theatre which fired the bullets which went into

Tippit is irrelevant?

WEISBERG: I beg your pardon. That's another foul ball. No bullets

were ever traced to that pistol How dare you say such

a thing?

LANE: He's just inaccurate.

00HEN: Excuse me excuse me....I will be precise. A pistol

was found

WEISBERG: It's about time.

COHEN: A pistol was found. You don't have to be abusive. You've

been abusive all night and I want you to stop.

WEISBERG: I will stop when you stop lying.

COHEN: A pistol was found, a pistol was found on Oswald when he was

arrested in the movie theatre. Correct? 71.

BISHOP: Now, we haven't reached this point and we are....

(overtalk)

SAUVAGE: It's not acceptable as it is. The point I would like to

make is that the Commission says there were nine eye witnesses

in one text, and 13 eye witnesses in other text who have

seen Oswald either killing Tippit, or at least get away

from the scene of the killing holding his revolver. Now,

if anybody can accept the criteria of the Warren Commission

in the future, for calling identification valid of an eye

witness reliable, then the whole administration of justice

in this country is going down the drain because it is simply

unacceptable, when you go for instance, when they show it to

the police

BISHOP: Lineup

SAINAGE: Lineups are conducted. When you see, for instance, out of

nine witnesses who are called as eye witnesses, five have

identified Oswald on the basis of photographs shown to them

two months later by FBI. There is no discussion.

BISHOP: No, now wait a minute. As I recall, the two sisters who

stood on the porch identified Oswald in the Lineup later that

day. The woman who stood diagonally across the street, identified

Oswald

SAUVAGE: The whole implication by lineup have absolutely no validity.

BISHOP: Well, you are then in a position of throwing out the things

which do not agree with your thesis and accepting only those

which embrace you.

SAUVAGE: I beg your pardon, I simply quote now what any jury in

America , in France, or anywhere else says about eye witness

identification. What Chief Justice Wareen himself would 72.

enforce in the Supreme Court if a question of eye witness

implication comes up; so, it's not simply the fact as the

Commission itself describes in its hearings the lineups....

Then you would throw out the S witnesses

SAUVAGE: Completely.

BISHOP: Well, excuse me. Let us be back in a minute.

BISHOP: Gentlemen, the next point is this. Lee Harvey Oswald

possessed the capability with a rifle which would have

enabled him to commit the assassination, and I'd like to

hear from Mr. Lane on this.

LANE: Well, perhaps of all the statements made by the Commission

none is more extravagant than its statement that it

tested the alleged assassination weapon under conditions

which simulated those which existed on November 22nd

from the Commission's view that is. Now, let's examine

each of them briefly. First of all, Oswald's last known

score with a rifle in the Marine Corps showed that he was

a rather poor shot and that's quote from the Marine Corps

since he fired one point, and this is the actual document

showing that with the last sentence that he has consequently

a low marksman qualification, which was Oswald's last shot.

In fact, he made just one point above the lowest qualification

in the Marine Corps, indicates a rather poor shot, etc.,

and that's what Oswald was. Not 92.

only was he a low marksman qualification, but he was the

lowest. He made it by one point; so the Commission had

the rifle tested by three of the best riflemen in

America, all listed as master riflemen by the National

Rifle Association. That's the first problem I thin15.

Secondly, the Commission said that Oswald fired from the

sixth floor of the book depository building which means

that he was more than sixty feet off the ground. The

experts were given the rifle and asked to fire it from

a perch 30 feet above the ground. Secondly, the experts

complained that when they got this rifle, the scope was

not properly adjusted and more than that, it wobbled

so that it was impossible to get any stability from it,

and so the Commission allowed a gunsmith to attach two

whirs to the rifle, and to the scope in order to steady

it. So, it was not even the same rifle that Oswald

allegedly fired. In addition to this, Oswald, according

to the Commission fired at a moving target, the limousine,

as it moved away. It didn't move at right angles,

but it did move partially away. The Commission had the

three experts fire at three stationary targets. In

addition to this, the Commission stated that quite

naturally, of all the shots that Oswald fired, the one

which required the greatest proficiency,one would have to conclude was the first shot,because according to the Commission

an oak tree in front of the book depository building

blocked the view that Oswald would have had, was he in

that sixth floor window, from the President until the

pictures show that the President is reacting to the shot 93. which struck him.

BISHOP: Now, wait a minute he passed the tree.

LANE: He passed the tre

BISHOP: He didn't fire through the tree.

LANE: He did not fire through the tree, the Commission

says, but says the President is reacting 8/10ths

of a second after the limousine and the President were

visible to anyone on the sixth floor, in other words,

Oswald had less than 8/10ths of one second for the first

shot. The Commission experts %rem asked to take as

much time as they wanted for their first shot. Now under

these conditions, I think one can say the Commission

did not test the weapon under the conditions that

existed on November 22nd. Nevertheless, two of the

three - experts who tested the rifle for the Commission

under these conditions took more time to get off their

shots, that Oswald apoor shot, allegedly did.

BISHOP: Not all of them.

LANE: Two of the three, I said. Two of three. The third

one did it within the period of time, but since Oswald

was firing at that portion of the President would be

visible from the sixth floor window, the head, the neck

and a little more, it's interesting to note that of the

shots fired by the three experts, each firing the shots

twice, a total of 18 shots, not one bullet struck the

head or neck area of the stationary target. This,said

the Commission,that Oswald possessed the capability to

fire the shots on November 22nd. 94.

BISHOP: That it?

LANE: I Mink that's it, yes.

BISHOP: Anybody else?

SAUVAGE: I believe that you only can agree with him.

BISHOP: Well, I can't agree with him.

LANE: How about Fir. Cohen, does he believe that the test

simulate the conditions which existed and proved that

Oswald had the capability.

COHEN: On the first question, No. The test did not simulate

the conditions. I want to I don't want to startle

your world's view gentlemen, but I think Oswald was lucky

that day.

SAUVAGE: That's what you think but not the Commission.

COHEN: I think the Commission was tendentious on this part of the...

WE/SRPRG: . We-11, can we solve the assassinatlinn of an American

President on this basis, Jerry?

COHEN: We're not solving it on this basis.

WEISBERG: The Commission did.

COHEN: You think they solved it on this basis?

WEISBERG: The best face you can put on is by saying that Oswald

was lucky. The evidence is all the other way.

LANE: So the Commission actually went a bit further than that....

COHEN: Suppose he had been lucky, what could the Commission do?

WEISBERG: We can't solve crimes this way.

LANE: If they thought he was lucky they should have said it.

BISHOP: Now we have charged the Dallas Police with very poor

procedure, all evening long, and I think we're all

pretty much in agreement on that, the procedure could 95.

rove been a lot tighter, a lot more secure, a lot

better. How do we know what happened to that rifle after

they got it, after they tool out of the school depository.

Do we know

LANE: You mean no scope around on it? BISHOP: Or dropped it....or dropped it.

LANE: Yes, but since we don't know, Mr. Bishop, we cannot

conclude that it happened and none of the Dallas

police said that they did that.

BISHOP: But, we do know that if that rifle was used by an

assassin, even if we exclude the possibility that it

might have been Lee Harvey Oswald, if an assassin used

that rifle, then he did shoot the President. The

ballistics tests go right back to the same rifle; so,

whether the—scope was crooked or straight, loose.nr

tight, we are pretty certain that that's the rifle that

did the job.

LANE: First of all, I'm not certain of that at all

WEISBERG: If those bullets were traced to the assassination

LANE: secondly, all the BISHOP: Well what are you going to do with the bullets that

were found?

LANE: I'm about to say that the bullet which was found was

pure, pristine bullet #399...that goes back to the rifle,

but that bullet, insofar as I'm concerned, looking at

the evidence, is totally unrelatdd to the assassination

I see nothing which relates it, and the Commission's

ludicrous tale that it shed....we'll see what the Commission

said. The Commission said that it had an expert test 96.

the weapon. They fired a bullet through the carcass

of a goat which the experts said simulated Governor

Connally's back and chest

BISHOP: That was at Aberdeen.

LANE: Yes, and when it shattered the ribs, well it was

the deformed, the bullet was very deformed, and the

expert that compared that bullet to Commission exhibit

399 and said that it was not at all like it. And then

they took another bullet and fired it at the wrist of

a body, and the expert said with a certain amount of

pride that he was able to get exactly the same kind of

break in the wrist that Governor Connally suffered, but

that bullet was also very badly deformed.

BISHOP: There's a difference though between nicking a rib and

hitting the rib.—

LANE: Oh, which it didn't nick his rib?

BISHOP: It was supposed to have nicked Connally's rib.

LANE: Oh, but Dr. Shaw said that it smashed it to pieces, and

sent portions of the rib exploding as secondary missles

leaving behind a large gaping, sucking wound.

BISHOP: Do you remember your own statement earlier this evening

that traces, a couple of grains of the bullet were found

on the rib?

LANE: Yes, on the rib, and some other places in the body.

BISHOP: and on the top part of the rib

(overtalk)

BISHOP: Well, this would have drove across the top part of the

rib and down into the wrist. 97.

LANE: Dr. Shore said the fifth rib was shattered, tovertalk)

there was .just no question about that, it

was a large sucking 'hole, a large wound. It is true

that the Commission explained why Governor Connaly

reacted after the President did, to what they said was

the same bullet, by saying that after all he was only

struck, quote, "a glaning blow", and that's not at

all what Governor Connally said, nor what his physician

said.

WEISBERG: How many bones were smashed in the wrist? They can't

count them.

BISHOP: Yes, I know.

WEISBERG: Well this leads to another approach. The Commission said

that although not necessary to any essential finding of

.the Commission to determine just which shot. hit Governor.

Connally, it addresses itself very much to this bullet,

because the Commission said that one bullet missed

the motorcade entirely. Another Commission, exploded

in the President's head. This left a single bullet to

inflict all 7 non-fatal injuries to the Governor and one

the President. In the course of so doing, it not

only had to remain virtually intact' as we have just been

talking about, whereas the evidence is that it lost

more than enough to disqualify it in the wrist alone.

It had in addition to remain undeformed and unmutilated.

LANE: The three best riflemen they could find were unable to do

what Oswald did which was putting a bullet in the head

or neck area of the target and two of them were unable, 98.

even when they missed, weren't able to get the shots off....

BISHOP: But that still doesn't exclude the possibility that a

child armed with rifle could have found his neck and his

head.

LANE: One that basis, if you mean that anything in the world

is possible, I concede.

BISHOP: Are there contradictions and omissions in the autopsy

performed at Bethesda Naval Hospital on President Kennedy

and we'll start with you. And you can bring the bullets

in there, please.

WESIBERG: Yes, there are omissions and

BISHOP: Contradictions.

WEISBERG: Contradictions. The first draft of the autopsy was

burned. We have a facsimile of that.

No, the notes were burned, not the autopsy.

WEISBERG: I'm sorry. I said the first draft and the reason I

say that....

BISHOP: Dr. Hume said he burned his notes.

LANE: Can we look at slide 57 while we're discussin this?

WEISBERG: I, James J. Flumes certified that I had destroyed by burning

certain preliminary rough draft notes relating to Naval

Mediaal School autopsy and so forth

BISHOP: Not an autopsy.

WEISBERG: Let me finish please....

BISHOP: He didn't burn an autopsy

WEISBERG: Let me finish please. This is what his certification to

his Commanding Officer of the Navy Medical Installation

says. Certain preliminary rough draft nores. But Dr.

Humes was a witness under oath, and when he was questioned

about this, he said that in the fireplace of his home, 99.

on Sunday morning two days after the assassination,

he had revised this autopsy report, and he burned the

rought draft of the autopsy. The picture that was

flashed in error is the oldest existing autopsy

(overtalk)

COHEN: Maybe we can look at Vol. II, page 348, following....

can we get that from over there.

BISHOP: I don't think he said he revised it.

WEISBERG: I'll give it to you, this autopsy.

BISHOP: And the printing of these notes has nothing sinister.

LANE: Are you not alarmed that a man?

BISHOP: Doctor would burn %is original notes? LANE: .doctor would burn his original notes?

COHEN: If Humes is so guilty then he wouldn't have admitted that

he burned his ..—why would he committhimself?

LANE: Because Humes is a Commander and if Humes was ordered

to burn it, he might say, I'll burn it if you want, but

I want a certificate filed in the official papers which

says I did it because I've been ordered to do it and

there's his certificate.

BISHOP: But he doesn't say he was ordered.

COHEN: No, it doesn't say he was ordered.

BISHOP: You said he was ordered to burn it. Why wouldn't he

take the responsibility off himself?

LANE: How? By doing what?

BISHOP: By saying I was ordered by my Commanding Officer to burn

the notes.

LANE: Well you know he's not going to say it quite that way

unfortunately. (overtalk)

LANE: Why did he burn his notes, would you tell us that ?tr. 100.

Bishop?

BISHOP: I don't know.

LANE: Did those notes belong to the United States Government?

COHEN: That's the kind of question you have been resisting all

night.

LANE: No, I asked you, why did he burn the notes.

COHEN: But you will agree that that's the kind of Why question

which I've asked you several times.

LANE: Yes, I said that you can certainly place a sinister

implication upon the fact

COHEN: I have an explanation of that.

LANE: I'd like to have it

(overtalk)

BISHOP: Oh no, why would you keep notes, I don't. I write all

the time, and after T_get_finished with an interview of

anything else....

COHEN: I have an explanation if you want it.

BISHOP: What makes that any different if you have a final draft

of your autopsy report?

LANE: It's a historic document, that's why.

BISHOP: Because what?

LANE: It's a historic document then what do you say it is?

BISHOP: You say it is....his original notes?

LANE: His notes about the autopsy which he conducted on the

President's body which he was ordered to do by the

Government, to conduct that autopsy and then he burned

the notes.

BISHOP: He was ordered to file an autopsy report, not to include

his original notes. 101.

LANE: Do you think that's an ordinary practice with doctors

to burn their notes?

BISHOP: I think so.

COHEN: He also testified that the final autopsy was substantially

the same as the burned notes.

BISHOP: The fact that it was John F. Kennedy, the President of

the United States doesn't make any difference.

LANE: Ve do have a picture of his original descriptive autopsy

sheet, don't we? Well let's look at slide #2, and then

we will see if they were consistent with the original

autopsy sheet consistent with the final one. Now

there's Dr. Hume's original descriptive autopsy sheet.

The original one, the unburned one. Now point to

the dot, and you tell Mr. Cohen, if that's where in his -final draft-he said the bul]et entered the President's

bac.

COHEN: This is a descriptive sheet, a face sheet which was on

the autopsy report. And this was written by Cap. Humes, we don't know exactly when....

BISHOP: Commander Humes.

COHEN: When, but I think it was as early as Friday night, the

night of the assassination.

WEISBERG: The one man that it couldn't have been done by was Humes.

BISHOP: He didn't say WEISBERG: He was the one man that swore he didn't do it.

BISHOP: Excuse me, here's his direct statement on that. He

said I must state that these drawings are in part schematic. 102.

WEISBERG: They're different drawings....that's 385, and 386

LANE: Those were the artist's conception of the wounds because

the Government was never to look at the....

BISHOP: At the original

LANE: photographs and x-rays, so the best they could do

was to get a drawing.

COHEN: There are two points in there about this documents...

two points.

LANE: Would you refer to my point first?

COHEN: Well, I'm answering your point, but I think your point

deserves two comments. Whoever has drawn this face sheet,

has drawn a hole in Kennedy's back which does not coincide

with the hole as described in the autopsy. That the first

point which must be made. Now I have computed it on...

roughly,, and the discrepancy I find is abort. 3 inches.

That's the first point. The second point is thatim the

margin of this facesheet, it is written, as one finds

in the autopsy, that this hole is at a point 14 cent-

imeters to the left of the right acromium process which

is near the right shoulder, and 14 centimeters below the

right mastoid process. And I have determined that this

hole is not 14 centimeters to the left of the shoulder

blade, and not 14 centimeters below the mastoid process.

And in fact, this point does conform with the autopsy,

and this point does not. It is my belief that he was

accurate here, and he made a little mistake drawing the

little cricle. And I find circles very less authoritative

than centimeters.

103.

LANE: Were FBI agents present when the autopsy was conducted?

COHEN: Yes, there were two FBI agents present.

LANE: And what did they say about it?

COHEN: Their names were Seabert and O'Neil.

LANE: And what did they did you read the report which

they thought.

COHEN: Yes, I have it with me right now.

LANE: What did they say?

COHEN: The report that they filed, the report that they filed was

dictated November27th oh good, let's get that.

LANE: I have it right here.

COHEN: OK you read it to me.

LANE: Alright. Well, I'm about to do that. Well, that I'll do.

Page 284 "During the latter stages of this autopsy,

Dr. HuMes rocated an Opening which appeated - to be a-

bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches

to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.

This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger

at which time it was determined that the trajectory of

the missile entering at this point had entered at a

downward position of 4S to 60 degrees."

COHEN: May I comment on that? They had said that the hole,

which was seen the night of the autopsy was below the

shoulders and two inches to the right of the spinal

column. Now, a point 14 centimeters to the left of that

shoulder blade and 14 centimeters below the ear which is

essentially what we're talking about, according to the

Commission, is a point which leaves us about here. Now, 104.

my question is: "is this point consistent with the

verbal description which says it was below the shoulders

and two inches to the right of the spine. And I think

you could interpret it that way.

LANE: Well alright then, let's go a little further. Do you

believe that the bullet which caused that wound in the

back, higher up actually, Dr. Humes was incorrect in

placing it,the dot, so the bullet which caused the wound

higher up in the neck exited from the throat. Is that

correct?

COHEN: Yes, I think that's correct.

LANE: Now, let's see what the FRI agent said about that, in

their report Which is Commission exhibit 7. Inasmuch

as no complete bullet of any size could be located in

the brain area, likewise no bullet could be located in

the back or any other area of to body as determined by

total body X-rays, and inspection revealing there was

no point of exit, no point of exit. The individuals

performing the autopsy were at a loss,to explain why

they could find no bullets, and then later on, I'm not

reading out of context as you note, it's here if you

think I am, on the basis of the latter two developments

which I make reference to, Dr. Humes stated that the

pattern was clear that the one bullet had entered the

President's back and had worked its way out of the body

during external cardic massage.

COHEN: Hay I comment on that?

LANE: No point of exit and the bullet hadfallenout. Let me 105. just add one more point if I might to make it a little

easier for you. Further probing determined the distance

traveled by this missile, that's the bullet in the back

which you claim was really in the neck because Dr. Humes

was really in error. He didn't calculate as accurately

as you did a moment ago. Further probing determined

that the distance traveled by this missile was a short

distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be

felt with the finger. The end of the opening could be

felt with the finger, there was no point of exit, and

Dr. Humes stated that the bullet must have fallen out

during the cardiac examination, but it is your feeling

that the bullet, nevertheless, went straight through,

came out the throat and inflicated all the wounds in Go vernor

Connally,

COHEN: May I comment.

LANE: Yes, I'd like to hear that.

COHEN: OK, now we obviously have a discrepancy between the autopsy

which was written on November 24th and concluded that the

bullet that hit Kennedy, somewhere high in the back

exited from his throat and the FBI summary of that autopsy on November 27th which concluded that the bullet which

hit Kennedy in the back went in about finger length,

you know, the end of the finger length and presumably

worked its way out. What can explain for this discrepancy?

Now I believe the discrepancy can be explained as follows:

This document which Mr. Lane has been quoting from is a

document written by two FBI men who were present during

the autopsy Friday night. It's a very imprecise document.

It's a very incomplete document. By the way it has no 106.

reference to a hole, entry wound, in the throat, but

that's another point. And what it is clearly based

upon, and as a historian I think I have some experience

at looking at documents, what it is based upon is what

O'Neil and Seabert of the FBI overheard in the autopsy

room that night. Let me add one other point.

BISHOP: And they're not medically trained either.

COHEN: They are not medically trained, they're two guys from

Baltimore who rushed over because the FBI called them up

and said look the Secret Service has two guys, you get

two guys. And they also made, Seabert and O'Neil made ,

countless errors in their interview. Now in this report

I quote: "during the latter stages of this autopsy

Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a

_bullet hole." And what we learn then is, that the main

part of the autopsy dealt with this giant, this massive

default in Kennedy's skull. Now it is quite clear,

Capt. Humes, now Capt. Humes, then Commander Humes, is

quite frank to point out that at first he did not understand

where this bullet hole• in Kennedy's back led. The

explanation that I've been given by several doctors,

including doctor Milton Halpern, the chief medical examiner

of New York City is, that Kennedy was hit when he was

waving and his muscles were gathered in the back of his

neck. Later in the morgue, he was relax ed and that this

would tend to close off the channelof exit. However,

whereas these doctors at first were puzzled and had some

difficulty in tracing the bullet hole as it went through,

and might have said out loud at first, gee, I wonder 107. where this bullet went, whereupon Seabert and O'Neil

remember this. They then proceeded to find several clues

within the President's body of a path, and I can read

you from the autopsy, a bruise to the top of the lung,

a pattern of contusion which was 5 centimeters in width,

this is right in the autopsy report, and after conferring

with the doctors on Saturday, in Dallas, concluded on

the basis of all of the evidence, and out of earshot

and interview shot of the FBI concluded that this bullet

had exited from the throat. All I'm saying is...I don't

want to shock you now, the FBI made a whopper of a mistake

when it thus summarized that autopsy finding.

WEISBERG: You don't shock us.

BISHOP: I don't think they were qualified to an autopsy

report anyway ,

(overtalk)

WEISBERG: Let me address myself briefly. Before I get to the

question of the qualified people, I'd like to address

myself to a few specific words. The bruises. The doctors

testified that these bruises could have been caused by the

tracheotomy. The doctor who did this chart was an

expert in forensic medicine. He was not Jerry, Historian,

he was not Harold the writer, he was an expert in forensic

medicine. If he could have made a mistake in placing

the dot, could he not equally have made a mistake in

putting down the number? But let's get to the question.

COHEN: No, wait a minute. What is your answer to that?

WEISBERG: I'm not going to even try that. You built the whole

thing about maybe he made a mistake. Let me now get to 108.

th (-,ualified people.

COHEN: Well either way he made a mistake.

WEISBERG: I didn't interrupt you, remember.

COHEN: That's fair. That's very fair, go ahead.

WEISBERG: We have two kinds of qualified people. We have medical

experts, and we have trained observers. The Secret

Service had a number of people there, The man in

charge was a very dedicatedman, a really dedicated man,

Roy H. Kellerman. He located the bullet wound, not in

the neck, in the shoulder.

COHEN: Wait a minute.

WEISBERG: I won't wait a minute.

COHEN; Go ahead.

WEISBERG: He called in Clint Hill to be the official observer

for the Secret Service. Clint Hill located that wound

when he came in specifically for the purpose of locating

it, six inches down from the shoulder. Secret Service

agent, Glenn A. Bennett, the observer, was looking at

the President when the bullet hit him and this the

report acknowledges, and he said it hit him about 4

inches down from the right shoulder. Now Dr. Humes was

given, and all three of the autopsy doctors were given,

the President's garments to examine, and this is on page 2

H 365 and the reason for giving you this citation is you

happen to have this book right here. Dr. Humes said that

it was quote approximately six inches below the top of

the collar and two inches to the right of the seam.

LANE: Mr. Weisberg, would you look at slides 3 and 4 now, if

you like. #3 is the President's jacket. 109.

WEISBERG: Now when I asked about this and asked about the wound in

the President's back, the exact language of Dr. Humes

who was in charge of the autopsy is, "it corresponds

essentially with the point of entrance of that missile".

Dr. Humes testified the other two autopsy doctors,

eminently qulified men, were asked about Humes' testimony

and they specifically subscribed to this. This is not

conjecture. This is:not FBI agents. These are the men

in charge of the autopsy. They said that the wound in

the President's back coincided with the hole in his

clothes. We saw here only the coat, and may I suggest..

LANE: We saw the shirt also while....

WEISBERG: I'm sorry I wasn't looking at that.

LANE: Can we see that again now. #4 please, the next slide.

Slide 4 please.

WEISBERG: The President wore tailored clothing and even an untailored

shirt won't wrinkle that much when it's buttoned at the

collar. I think this is enough because these are the

most qualified people.

LANE: I think we can resolve the whole thing. A series of

photographs of the President's body were taken, a series

of X-rays of the President's body were taken. Ltt's look

at them. Mr. Cohen, did the Commission ever see the

photographs or the X-rays?

BISHOP: No, now wait a minute. Please, for goodness sake, don't

be clever. You know, as well as Ur. Cohen, as well as

I do, that these photographs were never released.

The X-rays were never released. And then you say may we

please look at them. And you know better. Are you going

to blame Mr. Cohen for this? 110.

LANE: No, I'm not going to blame Hr. Cohen. I'm going to

say that anyone who wants to defend the Commission on the

question of the autopsy has to say that the X-rays and

the photographs, if they were consistent with the Commission's

final version of what took place would have been released

or they would have at least been seen by the members of

the Commission.

BISHOP: Don't you think that perhaps that Mrs. Kennedy had some-

thing to say about that?

LANE: Well, photogrpahs of the President should not he published

and should not be seen by everybody in this country,

there's no question in my mind about that. The fact is

this, I think it's a point of everyone who is interested

in the facts in this case. And the facts are that the

photographs should not have been published widely, that's

true, but they should have been seen by the members

of the Commission, certainly Dr. Humes, on whose behalf

the photographs were taken should have been able to

glimpse at thee' at least, but he never did. As far as

the X-rays are concerned, there's nothing gory about an

X-ray. Most of us who are lay people can't even read

the X-rays and see what they show. The fact that the

Government of the United States has suppressed the X-rays

and has suppressed the photographs which would resolve

this classic question, perhaps of the direction of the

bullets as they coursed through the President's body,

can not be interpreted in any way other than this, and

that is that the X-rays and the photographs offer

evidence which rebuts the Commission's crucial and simple

conclusions. 111.

BISHOP: I don't think anything of the kind.

LANE: Well why are the X-rays not seen, Mr. Bishop.

BISHOP: Because I think that Mrs. Kennedy doesn't want them seen.

LANE: Who said that?

WEISBERG: Why shouldn't the doctor see them?

BISHOP: I think that, I think

LANE: Commander Humes had the X-rays. Why didn't he show them to

the Commission?

BISHOP: But if you remember, and we just had the page, he tells

that he gave them to his Commanding Officer who says he

gave them to the Secret Service or the FBI.

LANE: And where did they go from there?

BISHOP: And nobody has them now.

LANE: Nobody knows, but you conclude that Mrs. Kennedy has

them. On what beets?

BISHOP: Well, on the basis that I think that it was her husband,

and that therefore they are her property.

COHEN: Well, they are her property legally, you know that.

LANE: We don't know where any of this evidence is and you're

making

(overtalk)

LANE: Does that jacket belong to Mrs. Kennedy? (overtalk)

Excuse me, the jacket that we just saw a picture of.

BISHOP: Maybe she has no desire to suppress the picture of the

jacket, but she might not like any gory pictures of her

husband being published.

LANE: On the contrary, Mr. Bishop. When Jacqueline Kennedy

testified before the Commission she gave a full and

detailed description of the wounds voluntarily, and the 112. Commission deleted that from her testimony, not Mrs.

Kennedy, the Commission itself. If there's any squeamishness

there, its been betrayed by the Commission and not by the

Kennedy family.

COHSE: Mark, may I comment on this please.

LANE: Yes, I'd like to hear an answer to that.

COHEN: I must say that I, and it seems to me that any defender

of the Commission must be embarrassed by the fact that

these documents are not present.

WEISBERG: I'd like to get back to the record and get out of the

field of confection.

LANE: Well, we agree that those documents, all of us can agree,

that these documents, I think even Jim can agree that these

documents ought to be made available.

BISHOP: Absolutely.

BISHOP: There has been some discussion about the false Oswald.

I'd like to ask Mr. Sauvage about that.

SAUVAGE: The case of the False Oswald is part of the general

attitude of the Warren Commission which consisted in

systematically ignoring any lead which would lead away

from Oswald. There are, maybe half a dozen at least,

examples of leads leading somewhere else which the

Commission and which the interrogators of the Commission

did not follow up.

BISHOP: Can you name some?

SAUVAGE: Yes, I will start for instance, because I brought up

in March '64 the question of the Irving gunsmith. There

was a case where a gunsmith in Irving, a suburb where 113.

the Oswald family was with the Payne family, who had

found on his workbench a repair ticket with the name of

Oswald on it. Now this was a very strange case because

the repair ticket indicated that someone giving the

name Oswald had come in to have a telescopic sight fixed

attached to his rifle. The Commission has considered

that example and came up with a beautiful quotation from

Mr. Liebeler who did the interrogation, who said he can

imagine only three possibilities. Either this repair

ticket was brought in by Oswald himself, who had another

rifle, or it was brought in by someone....I have the

example here, exactly if I can read it. 1. In view of

the fact that Mr. was clear in his own mind that

he never bought an Italian rifle similar to the one that

was found in the Texas School Book Depository, we can

conclude either that the Oswald on th e tag was Lee

Oswald and he brought a different rifle in here, or that

it was a different Oswald who buought another rifle

in here, or that the tag is not a genuine tag add that

there never was a man who came in here with any gun at

all. Now, the obvious question is, there is a fourth

possibility, quite obviously, which is that someone who

was neither Lee Harvey Oswald, nor any other real

Oswald, came in, had a telescopic sight attached on

rifle and gave the name of Oswald because he didn't know

how easy it would be to trace the rifle to Oswald through

the Hidell papers and that he wanted to when the rifle

would be found with telescopic sight that the discovery 114. of that repair tag in the name of Oswald at the Irving

Gunshop, would lead to Oswald. Now, I didn't build up

a theory of a false Oswald. I only noticed that this

possibility has not only not been explored by the

Commission, it has been obviously ignored. I'm sure that

P. Liebeler is a very intelligent man that he could not

ignore that thing. Besides, I have indicated in writing

in March '64. So his duty was to go into the question.

He refused. He systematically refused.

BISHOP: But it was not the same type of rifle was it?

SAUVAGE: Nobody knows what type of rifle it was. The fact is a repair tag with the name of Oswald. That is a fact.

BISHOP: But isn't it also a fact that the gunsmith testified

that he had not repaired this type of rifle?

SAUVAGE: The gunsmith didn't remember anything about anybody coming

in, he had

BISHOP: No, no, the rifle, the type of rifle.

LANE: Actually what he said he didn't

SAUVAGE: The type of rifle doesn't matter the number of....

BISHOP: Yes it does.

(overtalk)

SAUVAGE: If we want to talk about the false Oswald, the question is, there was a possibility, I don't know it, I don't

say it, that someone who was not Oswald had come in in

order to leave suspicions towards Oswald.

BISHOP: But this is a surmise on your part.

SAUVAGE: It is a surmise, it is a possibility which any serious

investigation had to go into it. 115.

LANE: And may I suggest, Mr. Sauvage, it was supplemented I

think even further by the fact that at 3:00 or 3:30 on

November 24th, an hour and a half or two hhours

after Oswald was shot, someone called a television station

announcer in Dallas and said if you go to

gunshop, you'll find a tag there with Oswald's name

SAUVAGE: The coincidence is, goes much farther, because besides

the Oswald repair tag, we have the so-called automobile

demonstration where it is absolutely established with

corroborated evidence that a man who gave the name of

Oswald, Lee Oswald, went to an automobile dealer in

Dallas and said that in a few weeks he would have money

enough to buy a car, did a trial test with the car and

gave the name of Lee Oswald. Besides the man even looked

like Oswald. There was one of the salesmen who said

almost, but the hair line was slightly different and

so on.

COHEN: And two other salesmen corroborated on it.

SAUVAGE: And two other salesmen corroborated including that the

name of Lee Oswald was on a piece of paper next to that

automobile

BISHOP: The wife of one?

SAUVAGE: The man and his wife. It's completely corroborated. It's

completely ignored by the Commission. Then we have the

man who went to the Grand Prairie rifle range, who made

himself very obnoxious by shooting at the targets of

other people, in order to be well noticed, and he looked

so much like Oswald that I saw a television projection much

later of the people of the rifle range who had told about 116.

the story and they were still saying years afterwards

that it was Oswald, so much he looked like him.

BISHOP: How do we know it wasn't?

LANE: Well the Commisiion said it wasn't.

SAUVAGE: The Commission said it wasn't...this is the interesting

point. In all those cases,- and there are more of them...

a Cuban lady who got a visa and soon I have no time to

go into it, but in all those cases, the Commission does

one thing. The Commission says it could not be Oswald,

and they prove it, only because he was someone else and

etc. Once they have said it was not Oswald, they closed

the door and it was finished for them. For me, then it

starts. When they finish, it should start, and this

investigation has not been done at all.

BISHOP: — Don't you think thia opens n rich fieM for you?

SAUVAGE: It opens a rich field for the Warren Commission or

for any

COHEN: There is no Warren Commission is any longer.

SAUVAGE: ....or for any investigating body.

LANE: Because the question remains if it was not Oswald who

was leaving this obvious trail behind, who was it who

sometimes looked like Oswald, who other times gave him

name as Oswald, and sometimes looked like Oswald and gave

his name?

WEISBERG: May I give the Commission's words on this?

SAUVAGE: May I finish my point? Did someone who looked like Oswald

and someone who gave the name of Oswald has played a

part in the preparation of the assassination? Has 117.

appeared in many places where the real Oswald couldn't

have been. Now the Commission has refused, and I

repeat refused, to look into the question. And there is

a strong possibility that someone was there to prepare

a lead going to Oswald, making Oswald the patsy or scapegoat.

BISHOP: Well, I understand your feeling.

SAUVAGE: Well, this point has not been solved yet.

BISHOP: This is your, your belief.

JONES: Unfortunately, there's something more sinister I think

than this, that somebody needs to investigate and there's

nobody left, now to investigate it, and that's the fact

that there are at least 14 people now dead, who had some

type of extra knowledge, or had the opportunity to talk

to Oswald or Ruby alone after he committed, after they

committed-their acts in history-.

BISHOP: Could you recite each one of them, Mr. Jones? Af' JONES: Well, yes. #1. is Betty McDonald.— There was a fellow named

Warren Reynolds who saw Lee Oswald leaving after the

shooting of Tippit, and Reynolds was shot through the

head a couple of days after the asassination of the

President. And McDonald was the alibi for a fellow named

Garner who was arrested for shooting Reynolds. So they

turned Garner loose. About a week later, the police

arrested Betty McDonald and her roommate for fighting.

They acted as Judge because they only threw McDonald in

jail. An hour after she was placed in the jail she was

found hanged in her cell. That's just #1. 118.

LANE: And of course, she was a stripper at Jack Ruby's club at

one time.

JONES: Now the second death, I think is a....

BISHOP: Well, please proceed through the deaths one after the other,

Mr. Jones.

JONES: Alright, Hank Killom was a-friend and we have a slide

on Hank Killom too, if you want to look at it.

LANE: 53. That's 53.

JONES: # S3. Hank Killom was married to Wanda Joyce Killom who

was a table waiter in Ruby's Carousel Club, and he also

was an associate of John Carter's. Now Wanda Jpyce told

me that a few days after the assassination, Hank Killom

was hounded by Federal authorities, ran from...he was

a house painter, and he had to move from one job to

attothor, one city to.another; and he finallY wound am in

Pensacola, Florida. And from Florida, he called his wife

and said come on they're leaving me along, and we can

start over over here. Shortly after that he was in bed

one night about 11 o'clock and was called from the bed

and the next morning he kas found lying on the streets of

Pensacola with his throat cut. Now the newspaper said

that he had either jumped or fell through a plate glass

window. I think if they want to be completely fiar they

might have also said that he might have been pushed. He

had nothing in his pockets except a loose driver's

liscense, not even a billfold, just enough to identify him.

# 3 was Bill Hunter, a Dallas boy who was in Dallas at

the time of the assassination, visiting his parents, was 119.

working for the Long Beach Newspaper - the Telegram

Herald or .... Hunter covered the assassination for his

newspaper. He and Jim Cody, along with a lawyer visited in

Ruby and Senator's apartment on the Sunday night after

Ruby killed Oswald. They were among most...there's

a couple of people I don't want to name because they're

still alive but among those present was George

Senator, Ruby's roommate, Tom Howard, Ruby's lawyer,

Jim Cody and Bill Hunter.

BISHOP: And what happened to these three men?

JONES: Bill Hunter was hhot through the heart in the Police

Station in Long Beach,California by a policeman, who had

to change his story a couple of times before he could

get off with just a three year suspension. He had first

said that he had dropped his gun and it went off.as-he

picked ut up. They happened to ask him, now why was

a bullet going down through his heart if the gun went

off. Well that's a good point, he said that's really

not what happened, he said actually we were playing

quick draw with by buddy, there were two policement in

the room, and fast draw, and I just accidentally killed

my friend. The other fellow, the other policemn said

naw, we didn't says, I didn't even see it, I was

hanging up my jacket, I don't know how it happened. Jim

Cody two weeks later was killed by a karate chop to the

throat in Dallas, Texas.

BISHOP: Would anyone know by whom?

JOENES: Yes, but his accuser was not indicted. He was a few weeks

later turned out of the jail and committed another crime 120.

and he has been given a life sentence for that, but was

not indited for the death of Cody although he was selling

Cody's effects the next day, but they saw fit not to indict

him. And by the way, Jim Cody was working with a team

of three men to do a book on the assassination. And

Cody's assignment was do do an in-depth study on the Dallas

leaders. The other two men on that team were Thayer

Waldo, whose testimony is in the Commission, and we know

how he got trapped and kinda helped him to leave the

country. He's now working in Mexico for the University

of the Americas, and the third man was Ed Johnson who was

with the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram at that time. He's

now with the Carpenter News Agency in Washington.

BISHOP: Who's the next one?

?ONES:_ That's three of thorn.;. Ed Johnson, Thayer Waldo and Jim

Cody. The fifth death was Tom Howard who was the first

man to talk to Ruby after he killed Oswald.

BISHOP: Tn the elevator? JONES: No, he was an attorney who...he was Ruby's attorney.

BISHOP: Well, he wasn't the first man to talk to him. You mean,

the first attorney?

JONES: The first attorney to talk to him. Not, the first man,

but the first attorney. He died of a heart attack a

few months after the assassination, of an apparent heart

attack. There was no autopsy. He was taken to the

hospital by a "friend", and they haven't been able to

find out who that friend was, but I have a newsman in 121.

Dallas who is a friend of mine who saw Howard three days

before he died and he told me then that Tom Howard was

frightened to death now. I don't know how a heart

attack started three days ahead of time, but maybe it

was a prolonged heart attack. The sixth one would be

William Whaley, who was the cab driver that took Oswald

from...

BISHOP: From he Greyhound bus terminal

JONES: From the Greyhound station out past his rooming house

and waited for....

BISHOP: He was a very stout man weighing around 300 lbs.

JONES: Whaley...that didn't have anything to do with his death.

He was killed on the Trinity River bridge one night, in a

head-on collision. The first taxi driver to be killed

since about 1937 in Dallas up till that_time. Although

the details are very sketchy on how that accident took

place. The 7th dealth is Earlene Roberts who was the

housekeeper at the rooming house

BISHOP: Yes, how did she die?

JONES: Well, she died too, of an apparent heart attack, although

I know of no newsman in the world who talked to Earlene

Roberts after she gave her amazine testimony. She was in

complete hiding. It looks like the police hung a DUI

charge on her, or they actually convicted her of it, and

that helped them to

BISHOP: DWI mean dring while intoxicated?

JONES: Driving while intoxicated, although she was suffering

from diabetes and I doubt very much if she drank. I 122. searched for two months trying to find this lady, cause

I had a feeling she was gonna die, but I never was able

to get in touch with her, and I know of no one else who

was able to talk to her after she told about the Dallas

police car stopping in front of that rooming house, while

Oswald was

BISHOP: The one with Alexander?

JONES: While Oswald was in it, and they honked the horn a couple

of times while Oswald was in it.

BISHOP: Who's she next one?

JONES: The eighth death would be Dorothy Kilgallen, who while

she was in Dallas covering the Ruby trial, is the only

news person who had an exclusive interview with Jack Ruby. Sne

spent an hour and a half or close to that time in the

cb-Imbers of Judge Prom, and then Judge Brown came out

of his chambers and sent Jack Ruby in, for thirty

minutes,and even the guards, who were so surrounding Ruby

all the time, stayed outside the room.

BISHOP: And you think her death was mysterious too? JONES: Yes, I do I do. The ninth death would be Capt.

Frank Martin of the Dallas police force who died six

months ago. He got sick on the job down at the police

station, went to the hospital and died 3 days later of

apparent cancer, you know, kind of galloping cancer. The

tenth man that I will list is Lee Bowers who we've been

talking about tonight - the man in the railroad tower who

saw the suspicious character.... BISHOP: Smoke coming from behind 123.

JONES: Well, he also saw the man behind the fence. He saw two men behind the fence and he never did tell the Commission.

They didn't let him tell them.

BISHOP: So far as we know though, he saw one puff of smoke of one flash.

JONES: Bowers was 41 years old and he was driving down the highway about SO miles an hour about two miles west of

my home town, when his car simply drifted into a bridge

abutment and he was badly broken up, although it certainly

wasn't a heart attack because his heart beat for 4 more

hours before the man died. One doctor told me that it

looked like he was in some kind of strange sort of shock.

That's all owe know about his death there. There are four

others that died, but I haven't told the widows yet that

their hushpnds might have been involved, and I don't

want to name them. That's some of the investigation

that somebody needs to be helping with.

BISHOP: Now, was there a conspiracy to kill the President?

LANE: Well, a conspiracy is defined in law by two or more persons acting in concert. We know, I believe, that the evidence

shows clearly that shots were fired from at least two

different vantage points. Unless the two persons who were

involved in firing at the President were the quite

coincidentally one to the other, then we can presume they

were acting in concert, and if they were acting in

concert, there was a conspiracy to kill the President.

JONES: I believe there was, too. 124.

BISHOP: You believe there was a conspiracy. How about you, Mr.

Sauvage?

SAUVAGE: I have restricted myself in analyzing the report of the

Warren Commission the facts as given by them. I came to

the conclusion that they have no case against Oswald.

Now, if they have no case against Oswald, then if

Oswald had been impersonated, or if Oswald had been taken

as patsy for someone else, then it implies obviously a

conspiracy.

WEISBERG: Earlier I referred to this one magical bullet that had

to inflict all seven wounds. If it didn't do it, there had

to be another bullet. That meant at least one assassin

more. The doctors had this question posed to them:

"Could this bullet have done it?" The doctors said that

..it could not have. The words they used, and taking

about the autopsy doctors, too, I can't conceive

BISHOP: Now, wait a mintue. The doctors did not say that this

one bullet could not have gone through the strap muscles

of the neck

WEISBERG: And remained unmutilated, undeformed, and virtually

intact. And this bullet had to be. And the doctors said

that this bullet that came from the- hosptal .....

BISHOP: The bullet was virtually intact.

WEISBERG: Itwas missing 2.4 grains. Three points were lost in the

wrist. It was undeformed. The Commission ignored the

"undeformed" and the Commission itself says it was

unmutilated and if you want to see how an unmutilated...

BISHOP: I believe your point. What I'm trying to do is just to

find out if you believe there was a conspiracy. 125.

COHEN: No, I don't believe there was a conspiracy. In order

to believe that there was a conspiracy, I would have to

believe that on the very day of the assassination,

doctors in Bethesda misrepresented their observations,

FBI men in Dallas planted rifles, Dallas policemen and

FBI men planted bullets and- pistols, and that the Warren

Commission which -- as I've studied this particular

question very closely -- that the Warren Commission came

to know this at least within two months of its formation

and that the seven members of that Commission, and that

the fourteen members of the Staff, then proceeded to

produce a report consciously saying theft there was one

assassin, when they knew with perfect clarity that

there was two.

BIHOP: All right, now we -,have all of the opinions. Now,

one more question, and then we will end this evening.

Was the Commission sloppy, or sinister, or complete and

accurate? Let's start with Mr. Jones. Now, please bear

in mind, you've got four options there. Sloppy -- which

means that you could be inaccurate consciously trying to

be inaccurate. Sinister -- which implies that they plotted

the report to come out the way it did. Or complete and

accurate.

JONES: I think that the Commission members . themselves did not

attend enough of the hearings to get a train of what was

going on. I think they relied on the staff....

BISHOP: How about Jenner and the others who coOductedthe

interrogation? Do you think they were sloppy?

JONES: Certainly I think they were sloppy.

BISHOP: Sloppy rather than sinister? 126.

JONES: I don't know. I can't go into their minds that way, but there are too many obvious questions that lawyers know

that should have been asked next, and they were not

asked.

BISHOP: As you said before, the next most important question..

Mr. Sauvage.

SAUVAGE: I wouldn't like to go into adjectives. I don't know if

the word which applies is sloppy or any other word, but I

would say this: The Commission did not take the necessary

precautions to come to the truth, to get to the truth.

And I would like to have any defender of the Commission

explain to me what valid -- I would say even what honest --

reason there may be to refuse cross-examination. I am

not specially sympathetic to Mark Lane, but I believe

since he was designated by Mrs. Marguerite Oswald, the

mother of Lee Harvey Oswald to present the interests of her

son, his place was at the Commission.

BISHOP: In spite of the fact that under the power granted to it

by President Johnson that this was a fact-finding Commission....

SAUVAGE: Fact-finding Commission doesn't exclude cross-examination.

As a matter of fact, quite a number of jurists all over

the free world agree that there is no "facts" if there is

no contradictory examination. There is no such thing

as a fact without a proof.

WEISBERG: The one word I cannot agree with is the word "sloppy."

We are dealing here with men of great competence; their

positions in life today establish it, their positions

before they went with the Commission established it.

It cannot be considered sloppy that they listened to men 127.

who were liars, and said they were credible witnesses.

That evidence was destroyed, that evidence was manipulated,

that evidence was ignored by men who were even including

law school professors, that they accused one of the

major witnesses of perjury, according to the record, yet

credited this witness who was a major witness in the

Ruby trial. That they misrepresented their time

reconstructions on the timing of Oswald getting down to

the second floor, and on Oswald getting to the killing

of Tippit. This is not sloppiness; this is gross

misrepresentation of simple fact. The one thing I will

not say is that they were sloppy.

BISHOP: Mr. Lane. LANE: The Commission approached its task with a preconception.

And I think this is evident from a number of statements

that the Commission Counsel made. For example, Congressman

Ford, one of the distinguished members of the Commission,

wrote a book in which he explained how the Commission

approached its task. Among other things, he said "one of

the deepest mysteries at the outset of the hearings

was why would Lee Oswald want to kill the President."

At the outset, not who killed the President,it_Ev would

Oswald want to do it. And in January of '64, before the

Commission took any testimony, the Commission's General

Counsel Mr. Rankin outlined the six subdivisions to which

the Commission would function. They would be based upon

these areas of investigation: (1) Oswald's activities

on November 22nd, (2) Oswald's background, (3) Oswald's

career in the Marine Corps and his stay in the Soviet 128.

Union, (4) Oswald's murder in the Dallas police station,

(5) Ruby's background, (6) the procedures employed to

protect President Kennedy. I suggest that a seventh

panel should have been set up as well: to determine who

killed President Kennedy on November 22nd. The Commission

approached its task with the judgment that Oswald did it,

and did it alone. And it then conducted its investigation

relying almost exclusively upon the Dallas police, the

Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other local and

federal agencies. But those very agencies, the Dallas

police, the FBI had reached their conclusions before there

was a Warren Commission. And their conclusions were that

Oswald did it and did it alone. So the Commission relied

upon agencies which had reached a conclusion which it

itself had reached before it took any testmony. And.I

think this is almost natural to expect. We had suffered

a severe shock, a traumatic experience with the death

of the President, and then with the murder of the alleged

assassin two days later. And it was indeed reassuring,

pacifying, and tranquilizing to discover that our govern-

ment had said that one man had killed the President and

he was dead and the case was closed. And I think that

indeed was the Commision's great contribution to national

tranquility. But, in its wake, it left no contribution

to historical truth.

BISHOP: Mr. Cohen.

COHEN: Well, I think we should remember that there is no longer

a Warren Commission. We may wish that things had been

different, that they had allowed for cross-examination, 129. and I myself wish that certain parts of the report had

been written differently, and I see a certain degree of

sloppiness. But there is no longer a Warren Commission,

gentlemen. And the important question before us is:

Is there anything sinister to be believed of the Commission?

And I don't think there is.-• I want to just say one further

thing. In April of 1964, Mark Lane came to Brandeis

University where I was teahhing. This was four months

after the assassination. And he gave a really marvelous

presentation, and he convinced every student that there

was something awful afoot. And Mark Lane said in April

of 1964: why hasn't the Warren Commission published

its results? And I tried to answer Mark Lane at that

time, and pressured by his question, I said, "Well,

wait,. Let's wait until June." And that.was the kind of.

context in which the Warren Commission operated. Now

Mark Lane has written a book called "Rush to Judgment".

One wonders who it was that rushed to judgment. And

I wish the Commission had sat longer, and I wish that

certain questions had been pursued, but I do not believe

that the integrity of that Commission and the integrity

of that staff, and I might say, the integrity of our

institutions, has been challenged by these gentlemen. LANE: I think, perhaps, I will be given an opportunity to

respond to the personal comment that was made to me. In

April of '64 I said that which I say today, because that

was clear then as well. #1. The Commission decided that

it would deny the right to the mother of the accused

to have counsel represent his interests, a right which 130.

is respected in Commissions, royal Commissions in England

and France, other Commissions in France and elsewhere.

I said that then and I say it today. And I think if we

had had cross-examination at that time, and the evidence had

been subjected to the crucible of cross-examination, we

would have closer to a factual record today, whether I

was counsel, or someone else. Secondly, I said that

I did not like the idea of seeing the Commission place

all of the testimony as it came in secrecy, and mark every

bit of testimony "top secret" and then to hear the

members of the Commission including the Chief Justice

come out of the hearings sporadically and present that

portion of the evidence to the public -- to the media --

that it felt was convenient to its case. I. said then that

I thought it was a poor procedure, and one which was not

guaranteed to give us truthful results. I still say

that.

BISHOP: Ladies and gentlemen, we draw to the close of what I

hope was an exciting evening for you, as it was for me.

I find myself in disagreement, as you know, with these

gentlemen; but, I appreciate their presence, and I respect

their views. I feel, having read the same material as

they redd, that quarrels can be found, and threads can

be ripped, from the great suit brought about by the Warren

Commission. But, I do not believe that tearing bits from

the fabric is going to destroy the body of evidence. And

when I find time to write my book which may be two years

from now, I expect that unless evidence to the contrary presents

itself between then and now, I will support the Warren

Commission Report. And I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald 131. did it, and did it alone. Ladies and gentlemen, good night.

- END - SCHOENBRUN: You have just seen six men ask some very basic

questions about the Warren Commission Report

and its findings. In a subsequent program we will

present the opinions of those who support the

Presidential CoMmission.

I'm David Schoenbrun. Good night.